Rebuttal- alaska

Depression is often thought to be an easy get over and move on type of deal. People in society see people with depression as attention seekers and that they are just upset and they will get over it in a minute. Depression might be a one-day thing then the next day is great but then it comes back.

For me, I can’t easily get over it. One minute I am fine then the next my mind is telling me all these bad thoughts. I tried talking to one of my friends and she told me to cheer up and she left it at that. She didn’t say anything else. I have sought help and it is hard to own up to it and ask because I felt like people would judge me for it. It was hard to get over all this trauma and my parents saw that I needed help and I saw someone for it. Seeing someone didn’t help me because I am so shy and don’t usually like meeting new people. So, after trying this I became close to my mom and now I go to her whenever I feel it come back up again. My mom helps me so much and I am so thankful for her. My dad is the same way, he helps me no matter what and makes me feel like I’m okay. Parents are great to talk to because they understand and could have gone through the same thing. Some people don’t seek help because either they are scared to be judged and sometimes they don’t know how to ask for help and I understand why it is a scary thing.

In the article “Depression In Teens,” the author gives suggestions to help prevent depression for teens. For example, they can go to therapy or they can take medication that is prescribed to them. If a teen asks for help or say that they are depressed society turns and says they are overreacting. They just are feeling down they will be okay soon. Society shouldn’t turn away and say these things because it makes the teens feel even worse about themselves. If a teen is refused of help or is made fun of for being depressed it can worsen to a point where they can harm themselves. Almost five thousand young people kill themselves each year.

Whenever someone asks for help whether it be a young person or an adult or an elder, we should help. Seeking help isn’t a bad thing and saying that you have a problem isn’t either. Society makes it seem like it is. Society needs to learn to be quiet and keep their opinions to themselves if it can hurt another person. There are many ways to prevent depression from getting out of hand and having anyone of any age kill themselves because they think it’s the only way to solve their problems.

In the article, “Residual symptoms at remission from depression: impact on long-term outcome”, the author states that,
“Patients who remit from depression with residual symptomatology continue to have more depressive symptoms and impaired social functioning long-term and may need more aggressive treatment.”
So, patients that deal with depression and get treated for it, the depression usually comes back. The patients usually need more powerful treatments to help them cope with the powerful depression.

Depression needs to vocalized and recognized that it is there. No one should suffer. No one should kill themselves. People need to know that they is help out there.

 

Works cited

“Depression In Teens.” Mental Health America, 8 Dec. 2016.

 

Rebuttal- Killroy513

The American Prohibition was enacted in the year 1920 and would last until 1933. The eighteenth amendment was enacted to enforce the restriction of alcoholic beverages. This included liquor and beer products. At the time these products were in high demand, since it is a major part of society, its iconic and everyone for the most part enjoys them. This being said, the market would go from legal to illegal very quickly. The black market would supply these products to people who were willing to pay. In the big cities, the alcohol trafficking was done mostly by gangsters. These gangsters would form organizations and create bars and clubs. Being a very lucrative business and highly illegal, the police would step in and shut them done. Eventually the businesses went “underground”. Alcohol trafficking was a great way to make money doing this time, assuming the person would not get caught. Cars were in demand being the new thing. The transportation of goods went from horse and wagon to the automobile. During this time many alcohol products would be brought in by cars or trucks and sold to the public “under the table”. Eventually this would be found out by the police and the transportation of goods this way had to be more crafty. This would lead to the  modification of these automobiles. Having a car or truck that could evade the police for the most part fixed this issue. This, some may say, laid the foundation for the beginning of NASCAR, and modification of cars.

Many aspects contributed to the boost in illegal activity during the Prohibition. At the time people realized that large amounts of profit could be made at the time. Alcohol was in demand, and people did almost everything to get it. The black market at this time was highly lucrative, being that large amounts of money could be made extremely fast. In essence the black market would jump start the illegal activity of many during this era.

The transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century was widely apparent. Cities grow to record sizes and the people changed for the good and bad. During the roaring twenties, some people acted on this black market, either adding to it or trying to “bust” it. The people who wanted to control this surge of money were primarily the big time gangsters in these huge cities. Cities like Chicago, New York City, Boston, ect. Gangsters back then are nothing like the ones of today. They had class, but also thought on their feet. One of the most famous ones from this time period was Al Capone, working in the mid west. Since the distribution of any alcoholic product was outlawed aside from medical use, it would be harder and harder to sell it. The gangsters of this time thought of extremely clever ways to make money and ensure their customers had what they wanted. The creation of “underground” bars and clubs would begin. Theses types of clubs and bars would be known as speak easy. These clubs would be hidden and passwords would be used for access. People had fun, and the gangsters made money. It was a win win.

With the high demand for the illegal drinks, transportation of the alcohol for sale would evolve from simple transportation to the use of the newly adapted automobile. Cars were a new thing at this time. They were beginning to be widely used and it transformed the transportation system. The American Prohibition helped create NASCAR because the cars used were modified. The cars were made to be faster then the police and made to handle better as well. Eventually the people who illegally transported the alcohol would begin to race the cars they modified. This would lay the foundation for NASCAR, since it is a sport based on racing high performance cars. The engines were modified along with taking out unnecessary weight.

The foundation of NASCAR and other sports like it would be laid during this era. People began modify cars not only to evade the police but to race. This would give birth to a whole new sport that many enjoy. The story goes, that the moonshiners down in the southern states would get together and race their moded cars. After the Prohibition, the races would continue and eventually be recognized as a sport.

Essentially, the prohibition boosted illegal activity within the United States and with that created one of America’s greatest sports.

The American Prohibition helped create NASCAR because the cars used were modified. The cars were made to be faster then the police and made to handle better as well. Eventually the people who illegally transported the alcohol would begin to race the cars they modified. This would lay the foundation for NASCAR, since it is a sport based on racing high performance cars. The engines were modified along with taking out unnecessary weight.

Racing in America went from Horses at the local derby to cars on the race track. After the discovery of car racing, the sport took over the track. Racing started off as Rally Cross, off road racing. This form of racing is widely popular and carried onto Europe where most of the races are held. After Rally Cross, the cars and the sport evolved to road racing, very similar to the Grand Prix. Here the races would only be held on roads that were paved making the races more fast paced. Finally, NASCAR would come into play. The races are held on an oval track. Hard to believe that this iconic American sport evolved from the prohibition. At the time no one really knew that having fun racing cars would evolve to such a big thing. People simply had fun.

BUT, many can argue that the art of racing was around way before the American Prohibition. At the time, especially in Europe, racing cars would be the newest craze. The races would be called the Grand Prix. This originated in France and involved into its own “sport.” Eventually the Grand Prix would become Formula One racing. The roots would begin in the 1920’s but would not be recognized until 1950. For the most part these European races involved gambling on who would win and watching the races unfold. During this time cars in America were used for a completely different purpose. Making money. Eventually, racing would become popular.

NASCAR as a whole is a sport based on the actions of everyday people in the 1920’s. Throughout time, many things were created on accident or because of the effects of an event. At the time, people thought nothing of the racing, but eventually the races would turn into a sport loved by many. The argument stands however that the sport may have been around before the Prohibition.

In the end, a lot of good and bad things came out of the prohibition, the most obvious good thing was the removal of the actual amendment. Getting rid of alcohol made people more creative, and people had fun. An American sport was born, and with that came one of the most expensive hobbies, modifying cars.

Work Cited

“Prohibition in Canada.” Smuggling, Bootlegging and Speakeasies, prohibitionincanada.blogspot.com/p/smuggling-bootegging-and-something.html.

Sandbrook, Dominic. “How Prohibition backfired and gave America an era of gangsters and speakeasies.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Aug. 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/aug/26/lawless-prohibition-gangsters-speakeasies.

McElroy, Ryan. “The story of how moonshiners created the performance car.” Car Keys, Car Keys, 31 Oct. 2017, http://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/the-story-of-how-moonshiners-created-the-performance-car.

“History of the Roaring Twenties.” Prohibition and the Speakeasies, theroaringtwentieshistory.blogspot.com/2010/06/prohibition-and-speakeasies.html.

Gambino, Megan. “During Prohibition, Your Doctor Could Write You a Prescription for Booze.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 7 Oct. 2013, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-your-doctor-could-write-you-prescription-booze-180947940/.

“Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Dec. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

Untitled Document, http://www.laits.utexas.edu/jaime/cwp4/esg/smugglehistory.html.

“Black market.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Dec. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market.

Thompson, Neal. Driving with the devil: southern moonshine, Detroit wheels, and the birth of Nascar. Three Rivers Press, 2007.

Okrent, Daniel. Last call: the rise and fall of Prohibition. Scribner, 2011.

Rebuttal- phillygirl

Does foster care decrease the risk of physical harm for children?

The foster care system is a system in which a child (under the age of 18) whose biological parents have abandoned them, or they simply cannot take care of them due to reasons like a financial burden. The child is then placed into private homes, wards, or group homes and when placed in homes with a family who are their “foster parents” that family then sometimes adopts them. Adoption is a complex process and so much goes into trying to get guardianship of a child. While in foster homes, their safety is supposed to be number one, and they’re always in the safest positions. Some children sadly get abused by their foster parents, which then makes these homes unsafe.

In my essay I have come across articles that try to rebut my opinion on the harm of children in foster homes, saying that foster care decreases the risk of physical harm. In an article written by Richard Wexler, on chronicles of change.org, he talks about a story where 2 children were starved by their foster parents and once they notified their caseworkers, it was overlooked even though they physically showed what was happening. Case workers have a huge load of work; therefore, they aren’t able to take on every case which then makes these homes unsafe since nothing is ever done. In terms of the foster care system, it was put in place to ensure the safety of children and to keep them comfortable, but in simpler terms to ensure the wellbeing of children.

In my opinion I think that the case worker is the first part of ensuring safety for a child in foster care. According to the Huffington Post, there is little you can do about a bad social worker. If you come across a social worker who you feel isn’t looking out for the best interest of the child, there isn’t really anything you can do to change that no matter the situation, which truly fails to ensure the wellbeing of the child since they are the ones mostly affected. In that same article, a foster parent spoke about a caseworker getting so angry at a child that they demanded the foster parents to remove the doors from the girl’s bedroom and bathroom. This doesn’t seem like a way to keep a child happy, or comfortable. In fact, this is the total opposite. The Caseworker also told the family that she would not leave the house until her request was put into action, which is another example of how the foster care system doesn’t hold up to the definition of the word well-being. I feel as though that this a huge problem within the system because the Caseworker who is an adult portraying this act of spitefulness towards a child whose life is already unstable isn’t fair at all and it goes to show how much the children of the state are cared for. Which there is none.

I think that abuse in foster homes can be physical, mental, or emotional. Anything someone does affects a child and their well-being. There is no way that anyone could possible say that foster homes decrease the risk of physical harm because we have seen it from time to time with so many cases across America. To fix this problem, we need to one: hire many more case workers so that one case worker doesn’t have an entire caseload of children to look after, and two: begin to believe these children when they say that something has happened to them, they’ve been through enough.

Works Cited:

Teo, Dawn. “The 10 Most Surprising Things About Foster Care.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.Works Cited

“Abuse in Foster Care: The Denial Runs Deep.” The Chronicle of Social Change, 5 Nov. 2017, chronicleofsocialchange.org/blogger-co-op/abuse-foster-care-denial-runs-deep.

Rebuttal Argument – rainbow987

There is an argument that many people agree with, which is that depression is not a legitimate illness. This argument proposes that depression is exaggerated sadness and those who say that they have the disorder are attention-seeking. In addition, proponents for a similar argument say that although the symptoms of depression are real, depression itself is not an illness.

For many, it is difficult to distinguish between those who are exaggerating emotions for the purpose of gaining sympathy and attention from those who are genuinely suffering from chronic negative emotions, which is depression. Therefore, it is a common misconception to believe that those who are chronically depressed are actually just looking for attention.

The idea that depression is not an actual illness is entirely invalid. There is an ample amount of scientific evidence proving that the brain imaging of a person with depression looks different than a person without depression. There is a neurological factor that contributes to depression that cannot be “faked.” Therefore, it is not true that depression is just people exaggerating and seeking attention. However, people with depression have a physical chemical imbalance that impacts their mood. It is true that there are people who exaggerate their emotions for the purpose of gathering sympathy and attention from others. This type of person does not necessarily have depression. Depression is a legitimate mental illness that affects many people of all ages, races, and genders.

Many people suffering from depression are discredited in a variety of ways. People do not understand how they feel. People disrespect the idea of the disease. Therefore, many sufferers refuse to acknowledge their illness or seek treatment. This negative perspective can lead to a worsening of the illness. With aid from this mindset, many negative stigmas about mental illness, specifically depression, have developed.  These negative stigmas imply that it is not acceptable to have a mental illness. According to them, people with mental illnesses are “crazy” or “insane.” The negative thoughts surrounding depression and other mental illnesses lead to people not seeking treatment out of fear of being judged. In turn, the symptoms of mental illness may get worse. Therefore, negative stigmas regarding depression lead to a worsening of overall symptoms of the illness.

A common worry that many people suffering from depression have is that people are not going to believe them. Unfortunately, there is a stigma in place that many believe to be accurate, which is that depression is not a real illness. However, depression is a disease that can be proven through brain imaging neurologically. Depressed people are not looking for attention. Depression needs to recognized for what it is, a legitimate disorder.

In conclusion, it is common in our society to discredit those individuals suffering from depression, while also discrediting the illness itself as a whole. However, this belief is inaccurate. There are major differences between a person that exaggerates in an attempt to gather sympathy and a person that has depression. Depression is caused by a combination of environmental factors and chemical imbalances. The chronic negative emotions and feelings of worthlessness that a person experiences while dealing with depression are debilitating. The person’s experience is genuine. The illness is just as “real” as cancer or diabetes. In turn, it is important that our society begins to understand and respect those with depression. In order to make progressive steps towards a better society, we must be accepting and understanding of the symptoms surrounding depression, as we are with all other illnesses, regardless of whether or not we experience those symptoms ourselves.

Works Cited

Henriques, Gregg. “Anxiety and Depression Are Symptoms, Not Diseases.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 26 Mar. 2016, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201603/anxiety-and-depression-are-symptoms-not-diseases.

Rebuttal Argument – PlethoraGaming

When we think of esports we think ‘oh its video games,’ and not an actual sport. So is esports actually a sport? The common counterpoint is that esports needs to involve physical work in order for it to be sport. One of the arguments is

Anyone can also be a professional gamer. A good internet connection and decent specs on your computer can make you the next big name in gaming, if there has ever been one. These pro gamers spend nearly 12 hours a day training for the next competition.

But can’t that be said about athletes as well. Anyone can also be a professional athelete, they just need some training and learn some techniques. A person who likes football can pick up a football and start throwing and practicing. To be a pro gamer it is much harder, for example in MOBA games there are constant changes to the game where players have to learn the new meta and strategies of the game.

 

Training in eSports is rather detrimental to your health. Aches and pains in your hands from tapping away at your keyboard could have prolonged effects on your health, and looking at a bright screen for too long can hurt your eyes. Yes, if you were practicing with a teammate for football and get hit in the head too hard you can get a concussion, and that too could have long term effects on your health. But new protective gear could one day erase these injuries. For eSports, however, glasses and gloves would only dull the pain for so long.

Like Gabianelli anyone can get hurt. He makes a remark about how new protective gear help avoid this, but that is also true for video games. We have features with monitors where the lightning is adjusted so it doesnt strain your eye. And with new keyboards with wrist support and other neat features these problems are resolved, you just need the proper equipment for esports; similar in the way you need proper equipment in sports.

 

In a similar way, while eSports has “sports” in the name, it is the furthest thing from any sport we watch or play today.

Hocket is not like foot; but we consider both of them sports, just because we changed how we watch and play, does not mean its not sports. There are several traditional sports like hockey, football, soccer etc… And there are several esport games like League of Legends, Smite, Overwatch. I’m sure we all watch sports and esports the same way, there are bars now that show esports instead of sports, just like a typical bar. People gather around to watch sports; eating food and getting really excited. We do this in esports too, we gather with our friends and watch esports and whenever something cool happens we get really excited. We may not be playing it exactly the same but we are watching it the same for sure.

Works Cited

Formoso, Anthony Gabianelli & Thomas, and The Montclarion. “Point/Counterpoint: Are ESports ‘Real’ Sports?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Apr. 2017, college.usatoday.com/2017/04/16/pointcounterpoint-are-esports-real-sports/.

 

 

Rebuttal—pdqlover

“Who Owes Who, Child or Adult”

My research is about family responsibilities when the family has a disabled child. To be clear it is not easy, having to care for the disabled child 24/7 these responsibilities may fall on any family member such as mother, father, sibling or grandparents. Being in that situation can cause stress and tension in the family. Family member may sometimes think it is not fair and the disabled child may have the same thought but coming from different point of views.

In a “normal” family when the parents get of age and need help caring for themselves the children step in and provide care for them or they choose other options if necessary in most situations.When a mother a father have a disabled child, and that child is the only child they have, what happens when they get old and need to be cared for? What happens to the disabled child who needs to be cared for? Yes, there are plenty of other options that can be put into place but what if that is not the families wishes. The responsibilities extend to other family members such as aunt’s, uncles and cousins.

My point is a child who is able or disabled has to obligation to “return the favor” to their parents unless negotiated between the child and patent. But Im rebutting that it is not fair for a disabled child to “return the favor.” It may or may not be the child or parents fault the child is disabled but it is something the family has to live with. Why should a disabled child have to “return the favor” when they wish to not be disabled and think it is unfair.

Works Cited

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/8869

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2004.00464.x/full

Rebuttal rewrite – Jonhjelly

The microchip/RFID chip is new latest technology in the our world today. The microchip is a device that has the capability of changing the work place and creating the perfect work environment. But this can also create a terrible work environment because of the condition the workers will be put under. This device has been put in place at certain business for both employees/customers to monitor them. The head of the companies that are placing this devices can use them to monitor all of our movements and track whether their employees have been attending their jobs on time or have they been slacking off. Another reason why  employers have been placing this devices into there employees because they wanted to find a new way to increase productivity in their workers. But this could also cause an opposite affect to their workers. The device can estimate the workers ability to complete a task “” This microchip device can increase productivity because of its programming “using the information transmitted from the RFID tags as well as other factors, such as employee location, employee skills, and expected processing or handling time for the goods.” Stated in that article “Methods, systems, and media to improve employee productivity using radio frequency identification”. The device is a machine calculating numbers but a machine can be wrong. It can under estimate people or overestimate people and send the wrong person to the job. Causing even less productivity because the wrong person can be sent to do a job that they are not ready for. Another reason why the this microchip can cause a big uproar in the work place is the constant monitoring. This can be a big problem for some people privacy is a big issue for them.  Being that the employee has a constant eye on their workers. But not just in work but also out of work. They have constant tabs on our constant whereabouts. This could lead to stalking for the boss if there are obsessed with one of there employees. They could just long into the systems microchip that allows them to see all of their movements  and if they wanted to they could harass them or worst.

Another problem that the device could present if other people obtain he device the can read the RFID chip they can get hold of your information. According to the article “Should people agree to use the Identity chip” is states “without a doubt, privacy and security concerns are the main disadvantage with identity chips. Theoretically, anyone who possesses an RFID reader will be able to obtain your ID number. In turn, they may be able to use this ID number to access the records linked to the number.”(5). Now there is a high risk of a person stealing  your information of their  phone because they are password protected. If a person obtains RFID/microchip  reader than all the would have to be within a certain range to gain the id number. According to this article titled “RFID frequency ranges” the ranges of the RFID chip can “read range of such a tag can be around 3 to 6 or even 8 meters.” Meaning they would only have to be within that range and then they can have the access to their information. This could lead to serious problems with in the companies. In order to stop this problem from occurring they would  have to have a restriction on who has access to the RFID chip reader.

 

Work Cited

Centrenational-rfid.com. (2017). RFID frequency ranges. [online] Available at: http://www.centrenational-rfid.com/rfid-frequency-ranges-article-16-gb-ruid-202.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

Post, G. (2017). Should people agree to the use of identity chips?. [online] Startup Dope. Available at: http://startupdope.com/people-agree-use-identity-chips/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2017].

 

 

Rebuttal – college girl

Although tons of people care about the acts of police brutality and the effects it has on young black men, others seems to think differently. When the topic of police brutality is brought up in conversation, some seem to speak so soft about the topics, when in reality, it’s something that is effecting our nation as a whole. Our recent president, Barack Obama saw this effect, and decided to take the necessary steps in helping young black men, providing them with support and guidance to help them with their future. Not only did he want to help them with their future, but to help them realize that there is more to life than what is actually happening with police brutally, and not to let that act of violence, stop them from believing that they can make a change.

There have been many cases where white police officers get away with police brutality against black males. When people try to talk about it, the conversation either gets really heated or just extremely soft, soft meaning the people who are discussing the act of violence, don’t really care at all about it. In a recent article, the author said that urban communities are not a mess only because of police, but other things too! This does not make sense. In fact, police are the reason why urban neighborhoods are the way they are now. Police officers make the black communities feel like they have to be on edge when they come around. Their scared, nervous and intimidated. Something can happen at any moment in time with a police officer and a black male, whether they are doing something good or bad. Some people in this world just take police brutality so likely when it actually really is effecting the world we live in.

Barack Obama is making a change to this problem though. He his helping the young black communities create a place where their young men can have guidance and support in fulfilling their dreams. He is making it a point to make it a point to them that their is something bigger in this world then what they are seeing everyday within their communities, between violence, drugs, and other things in that nature.

Works Cited

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/13/why-are-conservatives-soft-on-police-brutality/

Rebuttal–todayistheday

We are told, at a young age, to never talk with our mouths full. Jim McBain and Brad Andrews ignore that pleasantry and common formality; their mouths overflow with well-constructed lies. Jim McBain, director of veterinary medicine at SeaWorld and Brad Andrews, vice president of zoological operations at SeaWorld, released a detailed pro-captivity statement during the time Keiko, the star of Free Willy, was in the public’s attention.

The 1993 Warner Bros film, Free Willy, sparked a national outrage over the injustice of keeping orcas captive. The family friendly film highlighted the special bond between a teenage boy, Jesse, and a young majestic orca named Willy. Audience’s hearts warmed and they rooted for a happy ending for both Jesse and Willy. The movie ends in bitter happiness, Jesse succeeds in freeing Willy to reunite with his family. As much as Jesse loved Willy it was only right for Willy to return home.

When released the film inspired thousands of people to strike against marine parks that keep orcas captive. The viewers were determined in freeing Keiko, the figurehead of captive imprisonment, and that frustrated marine parks such as SeaWorld.

Viewers wanted Keiko to have the same happy ending Willy did, they wanted Keiko to be free. McBain and Andrew want imprisonment.

McBain and Andrews are well-educated and successful individuals who make a hefty salary each year at SeaWorld.  Their experience and knowledge of SeaWorld would be invaluable if it wasn’t flooded with lies and half-truths.

In their PBS announcement, McBain and Andrews defend SeaWorld and its commitment to love and care for their orcas. It is obvious they care, but they care for the money orcas rake in rather than the orcas themselves.  If you took the profit away, SeaWorld would be quick to sell their orcas.  Money over matter.

McBain and Andrews start their defense by justifying captivity for the sake of education.  As we grow and urbanize we should find ways to stay in touch with nature.  They claim it is irrational for every person to experience nature by going out into the wild.  They claim it is more beneficial to drag animals to us rather than go to them.

They calculated how many people visit SeaWorld yearly and crunched some numbers to see the consequences of those people visiting “Robson Bite” instead. There would be over 2,000 boat trips a day, which to McBain and Andrews would be “ludicrous”. What is truly ludicrous is that they couldn’t bother to spell the location, they’re referring to, correctly. Its correct spelling is Robson Bight which promotes experiencing the majesty of orcas in the wild.  They don’t use boats to observe orcas, they use kayaks to avoid endangering orcas with boats.  McBain and Andrews don’t provide numbers to refer to, to ensure their creditability.  It is highly unlikely all SeaWorld goers would flock to one orca sighting location while dozens exist.

McBain and Andrews claim in the PBS announcement, we’d “destroy what little habitat is left by trying to do that.” They seem to be repressing the fact that SeaWorld destroyed natural habitat to build their marine prison. They choose to crucify getting informed of animals naturally and praise artificially learning about animals.

McBain and Andrews believe people need to be educated and connected with animals. We all agree it is important to appreciate, understand and value the animals we share the planet with.  It is crucial to witness the strength, beauty, and intelligence animals in case, for us to understand our human lives are not the only ones that matter.  SeaWorld teaches the opposite lesson under the guise of education.  SeaWorld doesn’t teach truth.

SeaWorld also claims they appreciate the social and familial bonds orcas have with their family.  Yet, they built a company of the deed of ripping young orcas away from their families. They advertise they keep a mother and her baby together because in the wild an orca stays with her mother her whole life.  Behind closed doors, babies are ripped away from their mothers and moved to different parks to benefit breeding programs.  It’s an endless cycle of pain, but they don’t inform their guests of those facts.

SeaWorld’s website claims that their orcas live life spans equal to those in the wild. Wild orcas thrive in the open waters of the wild for an average of 60 years. Some, on record, prosper for over a 100 years. SeaWorld’s orcas perish at 13. The expiration date is cut down over 40 years. SeaWorld robs orcas of their lives.

McBain and Andrews seem to have good intentions when they strive to have education and connection to animals without destroying habitats. They should take off their rose-tinted glasses and see the damage SeaWorld inflicts. More than habitat is destroyed, lives are devastated.

McBain and Andrews claim that “over 90 percent of the American public feels that what zoos and aquariums are doing the right thing.” I searched to find validation for this statistic.  I found only one survey from Debate Organization, that showed only 41 percent of people believe zoos and aquariums are doing the right thing.

Majority of people see through SeaWorld’s façade and recognize it for the sham it is.  Now, it is time for SeaWorld to recognize their faults and take accountability for the damage they has done.

SeaWorld is not educational.  One cannot force feed lies and label them as education, its blasphemy. “If want a public that’s knowledgeable about wild animals and some sensitivity about them, if we want our children to have a chance to see many of these animals, it’s gonna have to be places like SeaWorld.” SeaWorld doesn’t provide the public with knowledge, they provide entertainment.  They also aren’t educating the public on “wild” animals, these orcas were stripped of being wild. Once they were dumped in those tanks they became captive orcas. There is a strong distinction between wild and captive, one is free and the other is a prisoner.

SeaWorld recognizes its company as a place where people can gain sensitivity towards animals.  Sensitivity is an ironic word for McBain and Andrews to choose.  SeaWorld is the opposite of sensitive, they ripped orcas from their families to make a profit.  They ignore the blood on their hands and shove the skeletons deeper into the closet.

Regardless of the corrupted truths SeaWorld chooses to ooze out from the closed doors, the message they convey is that we should be allowed to do what we want, if we make a profit. SeaWorld promotes inflicting pain to make a profit. Children should be taught to recognize and understand imprisoning an animal, depriving them of their natural habitat and sentencing them to a life inside a concrete pool, is wrong. We wouldn’t buy tickets to visit a cotton plantation, watching the slaves work to survive.  We should be horrified at the thought of endorsing such inhumane conditions.

 

 

Works Cited

“The Debate- Pro-Captivity.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service.

“Are Zoos Good (Yes) or Bad (No)?” Debate.org.

Rebuttal -NewEditionLover

“Do We Just Accept Gun Violence”

However guns are not just causing the tragic violence and horrible message that it simply portrays.Guns help by eliminating enemies in time of a real altercations like wars. Any attempt to limit gun ownership, let alone eliminate them, is met with vehement resistance. Guns create an order of protection as  they can be used as a means for a safe haven. The thought of me saying that guns are a good deed may have some cringing on their toes right now.Banning guns would certainly reduce injuries and gun deaths, and we are all in favor of that. An outright gun ban is unlikely, but we could greatly reduce the problem guns pose if we opposed them with one voice.Next to not injure people and not have this stigma on guns authorized users must exhibit to some type of mental illness testing to show that they are well and not sick in the head. According to an article “Mental Illness, Mass shootings, and the politics of firearms” stated that a number of states passed bills that required mental health professionals to report “dangerous patients” to local officials, who would then be authorized to confiscate any firearms that these persons might own. “People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” This quote emphasizes the importance of mental health test and the screening precautions they take to to prevent disasters.

To make this world a safe place again we must not eliminate guns as a whole! To not injure anyone we must further conclude that guns can belong in homes,  can be carried by individual’s, and should  be in use of anyone with special authority. I feel as though we are in a great area of protection and for the most part if we are in direct need we have a lot of assistance to help us in need. Next one condition that can be made is by doing background checks on all participants that are trying to purchase guns.  Guns aren’t safe but if you get a background check this may ensure that you’re not crazy or trying to do something illegal. The article “Everything You Need To Know About Background Checks by Miles Kohrman and Jennifer Mascia states that The overwhelming majority of gun background checks take just minutes to clear the would-be buyer. Only 2 percent result in a rejection because of a disqualifying record in the shopper’s personal history. Although the background checks are concluded we still have some who still might finesse the system still being able to receive the gun.”And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences.” The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.” I believe that with our countries history of gun violence its in the best interest that we put an immediate stop to anyone who seeks or previously seeked psychiatric or some sort trying to obtain any kind of firearm no matter what it is.

If we keep more guns away then there will be less deaths! Gun Violence in the United State’s is one of the most causing leads of death’s today. If guns were safer then more people would be getting injured or killed less. My father was killed July 1 ,2011 to gun violence. In addition the man who was accused of shooting and murdering my father was not authorized to be carrying a firearm and the gun was pronounced stolen. In this case of a stolen gun this man never had to go through the stages of getting a background check. Next this causes many of new theories in my head ,just like this man there are other people  who always find ways to get whatever they need in the moment. Since the man accused of the murder was one under the age to own a gun permit that should of raised a flag from whatever person that he purchased the gun from. Although Camden may be dangerous to some people it is a great home and can teach you a lot about this so called world we live in. It was about one am as my father drove the streets of Haddon Avenue in the Park side area as he was approached to a 20 year old man with a gun. My father defended himself to the best of his abilities as he fought to stay alive. In addition some may state it was a weird timing for your father to be out that late ,which it was and I will never know why he was out that late but he was. My father was reportedly shot 12 times and his death approached within a few hours later. Now I must say. how did at the time 20 year old Denzel Satterfield get a authorized weapon ? Things like this make me question the system of background check and other policies that we enforce so heavily in our state. In addition cops concluded that Denzel was not of the age requirements to have an authorized weapon or was never given a background check. Next this shows how many people who are criminals slip through the system everyday and do not need background checks to make them a gun holder.

Guns can be very safe if used correctly! Guns were typically used for military and war purposes to fight battles and other such things.”But the difference between guns here and guns elsewhere is that here in America, they are constitutionally protected. “The constitution declares that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” In addition back in the day guns were needed and there was never really a policy or law on why people had guns. Next but now that the law of guns is more complex there is a problem. Later guns were used against our rivals and keeping our country safe as far into keeping and remaining a free country. Guns could be safe and a way to better justify it is if you want to use a gun then I further hence you to join the army or a place some other type of legal action that will continue fighting for the United States Of America. This wouldn’t be an discussion if people were fighting for us but instead they are fighting and killing each other. Now for instance if guns were used the correct way the world today would have less of a problem with guns because it would be seen as a positive reinforcement instead of a negative sight.

Guns have been around for decades and may have good and bad intentions but we have to protect the country in ways that people are know using them for ,but people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase guns in bulk. Bulk Gun Purchases article concludes that “Laws limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase within a certain time frame help reduce the number of guns that enter the secondary market—weapons that are more likely to wind up at the scene of a crime. Commonsense regulation of bulk gun purchases is an easy way to reduce gun trafficking and, in turn, gun violence.” In addition this  quote emphasizes what I’ve been stating throughout the entire paper , reducing the number of guns once is permitted to have makes a better environment so gun violence is prohibited or prevented in general. Next the limit of firearm are doomed to be lower and show that fewer guns are traced back to crimes. In comparison to the article by Giffords Law Center state that sixty six percent of guns were recovered in New Jersey New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

Furthermore Federal law does not limit the number of guns a person may buy in any given time period. However, federal law does require federal firearm licensees (“FFLs”) to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF and other specified law enforcement agencies. This reporting requirement was created to enable law enforcement to “monitor and deter illegal interstate commerce in pistols and revolvers by unlicensed persons,” though there is no federal requirement that law enforcement actually investigate illegal trafficking.” which connects back into the theory that multiple purchases are not accepted as they may come off as a criminal act. In addition this reinforces the positive message that illegal actives will not be tolerated and this all together will prevent gun violence all over the country.

Works Cited –https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-guns-in-United-States-culture