Flame Off - Extreme Teen Plastic Surgery

    This video shared an extreme story with us, in which a 16-year-old girl, Christine, had her breast augmentation surgery due to her difficulty at school. Everyone made fun of her due to her unsatisfying body. Christine cried when she told the journalist her hard experience at school. Supported by her mother, Christine had her breast augmentation at sixteen. Fortunately, the surgery was a success. Christine felt happy not only with her outside change but her inside confidence.Most of the viewers commented below the video that Christine was too young to have the cosmetic surgery. She would not stop growing her breast until 21 or 22 years old. And she did not have to worry about her weight since 120 pounds is not fat at all. She could consider transferring to a new school to get away of abuses and mocks rather than having cosmetic surgery at underage. There were also viewers supporting her by saying that "we should not be shaming teenagers for wanting plastic surgery, we should be helping them instead." 

   I intervened a few comments below the video to try to bring civility back into the argument and to relate this debate with my semester topic. Firstly, this video well reflected my semester claim that cosmetic surgery could enhance patients’ emotional confidence as well as social status. As showed in this video, Christine suffered mocks at school, making her difficult to endure. However, after the breast augmentation, she felt happy with her change and felt more confident in school. Secondly, this video went against the qualifier of my semester claim that only people over 18 years old could be permitted to have cosmetic surgery. Christine is only 16. She was too young to have such kind of surgery. She had a bright future to become more charming and sexy when she grew older. I used argument of authority as learned in class, citing an old saying in Asia that “a girl changes eighteen times before reaching womanhood”, which means that girls are likely to become beautiful as they grow up. I used policy claim by insisting that Christine should be banned by her parents and doctor to do the surgery at 16. If things will not become better after 18 years old, she can choose to do the surgery at that time. Overall, I engaged some viewers as well as supported some viewers by using policy claims, qualifier and rebuttal of Toulmin model, and argument of authority, in order to engage in this assignment. 

  
My comments:

Reply to Alexandria Faber:

Xiaowen Jiang

Women usually do cosmetic surgery because they want to enhance their social status as well as their confidence. You know, women with good looks can find a better job easily. Good looks also help their marriage and human relationships. They have their rights to change if they want. However, in this case, I will not support Christine to do cosmetic surgery if I were her mom. She is only 16. She is too young to have such kind of surgery

 

Reply to MissInstinctualism:

Xiaowen Jiang

 

Moreover, the doctor SHOULD decline plastic surgeries for children, unless they are burnt or with serious birth defect. In this program, I appreciate the doctor's hard work and success, but I do not think the doctor's choice should be advocated. Doctors should turn to many other patients who need cosmetic surgery more.  


Respond to cjfelldownagain:

Xiaowen Jiang

Indeed, teenagers also have their right to be more beautiful. But, they are growing up! I don't think their parents or clinics should be helping them to do surgery at such an early age. As an Asian saying goes, " A girl changes eighteen times before reaching womanhood", which means that girls will always become beautiful naturally when they grow old. So, you do not have to pay for plastic surgery. You will become good as a teen.

Xiaowen Jiang

Her mother should have a second thought as well. Mother can do more at home to encourage her daughter out of depression, can help her to do more exercise and better diet, can help her to move to a new school, can tell children that you are the best in the world, and can promise kids that they will be permitted to do cosmetic surgery when they become older. Sending kids to hospital so early is definitely not a good idea. 

Xiaowen Jiang 

Moreover, the doctor SHOULD decline plastic surgeries for children, unless they are burnt or with serious birth defect. In this program, I appreciate the doctor's hard work and success, but I do not think the doctor's choice should be advocated. Doctors should turn to many other patients who need cosmetic surgery more.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu-e4716Kbo

Terminal Lance - Veterans Day at Applebee's

Terminal Lance is a comedy website for Marines, the term "terminal lance" is in reference to the fact that it is so difficult for infantry Marines to be promoted compared to other military occupational specialties. In this article and comic strip the author/creator Maximilian Urite talks about what veterans are supposed to look like. The author argues that the veterans of today look much different than those of years before. He uses argument by example to say that Vietnam veterans are stereotyped as bearded, gruff, leather and patch wearing men easily distinguishable, while the older veterans where over sized hats that say veteran on them. These stereotypes may be accurate to some extent but he goes further to argue that today's veterans are only distinguishable by that military appearance of a clean haircut and we wear polo shirt. Compared with the veterans of Vietnam a widely unpopular war those grizzled veterans show their service with pride, while today's veterans seemingly fit in and are not understood or hated like the Vietnam era vets. He further goes onto argue that people accuse him of misrepresenting the Marine Corps with his comic strip and he states its a comedic strip and tells them to F#%@ themselves in Marine Corps fashion. This type of argument and example may not be understandable to most civilians but as a veteran these comics crack me up and tell the truth more often than not.

http://terminallance.com/

Early memory lasts for life

It is not easy to get rid of bad memories from people’s childhood. In addition, it actually affects people to have weaker immune systems so that the average life spans are shortened. This fact claim is supported by a scientific evidence from Tulane University in New Orleans. Emily Harville, the research team leader, finds that unhappy memories of youth take huge place in each individual’s brain so that those can be remained as traumas. Moreover, the bad memories from youth cause women to smoke a lot and make them unstable. Harville conducted a survey of 4865 middle-aged women. She states that all subjects in her survey has some kinds of bad memories such as family violence or economic problems from youth. All subjects from the survey revealed that they could not live freshly. Ohio State University research team even comes out with specific result of childhood bad memories. They claim that the life spans will be shorten seven to fifteen years when people have unhappy memories. The idea of long-lasting early memory is familiar to most people. Therefore, it is not an extreme claim to me.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/world/2013/11/182_146186.html

Flame Off - Gun Control

     I decided to find a video about gun control. I found a report on some of the affects of gun control in Australia such as an increased crime rate, I did not want to use my UMN email address so I created the handle "Donut82". I started off my comment by stating a simple, neutral, and logic opinion that surmised as I do not believe an all out weapons ban would work in the U.S. however, I believe things could be changed such as closing the gun show loophole and asking if it is really that inconvenient to have a rapid background check completed if you were to purchase a firearm. Shortly after Sugergrover6868 commented, claiming something like yes it is all the "rednecks" fault. Please read the comments because then hilarity ensured.
     Regardless of what I said or whatever argument I made backed up with evidence this Sugergrover6868 would go off onto some sort of tangent about the liberals, the government, and even minorities. I picked and chose what to respond to but when I did i backed it up with evidence and links to news articles. It seemed this person was just talking to talk and because I engaged back that just gave this individual more reason to respond. While this individuals arguments were scattered and not backed by evidence, I feel my counter claims and arguments were backed with evidence and presented a cleared picture of the situation without being a "troll".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo&feature=youtu.be

Time ripe for Samsung Apple alliance - World’s top electronics companies pushed to unite for mutual success

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131113000946               This article addresses that Samsung and Apple are planning to make an alliance for mutual success on making their products even though they had their ongoing patent disputes. The two companies, which are labeled the largest technology enterprises in the world, try to insist on supplementation of mutuality on the development of software. The author claims that the timing is critical for both Apple and Samsung (value claim). The alliance would have a positive effect on Samsung in terms of market share in the global smartphone market. While Apple may have a lead in software, it has built an infamous reputation for being one of the most closed-door enterprises in the world (evidence-warrant). According to the article, Apple has a long history of keeping to itself, and sharing platforms doesn’t sound like a viable option. On the other hand, Samsung is more in need of innovation, but Apple won't be giving it away so easily (Argument by examples). Apple has a long history of being innovative while Samsung has been known to mimic or duplicate features from Apple, so this alliance seems too good for Samsung. However, if Samsung wants to make a large profit on the innovation of their products, Samsung needs to unify on some parts of software technology with Apple.  

Flame off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

The video is Milton Friedman speaking on why drugs should be legalized,  more than thirty years ago. A user made the comment that Milton Friedman was an idiot and that he was just out to show that government shouldn't do anything at all. The conversation didn't really start out relating whether drugs should be legalized, despite the content of the video. When I mentioned that maybe he wasn't actually an idea, and that Milton Friedman was interested in a decrease in crime and violence as a result of ending the War on Drugs, the commenter's response was juvenile. As I pointed out the positive correlation between drug enforcement and violence associated with the black market, his only response to me was "bullshit" and he refused to believe that such evidence could exist.

Jacob Gray
 Nov 13, 2013
 Most people here are missing the moral point he is trying to make here, what Friedman is trying to say is that even though drugs are harmful, if that harm is contained to their individual it's not within the right of law to use force to tell people stop doing it, he's by no means endorsing drug use.
Jacob Gray

Nov 13, 2013

Have you really listened to what Milton Friedman has to say? You'll discover that he's far from an "idiot." As far as Milton Friedman advocating that the government shouldn't do anything, that's a fallacy. It appears Milton Friedman advocates that positions because he advocates a position that emphasizes much smaller government than most people are used, but never did Milton Friedman say government had no purpose.

Mark Randall

Nov 13, 2013

 

+Jacob Gray
no Friedman is a doesnt know what the fuck hes talkin about with drugs, hes just trying to make liberal friends

Jacob Gray

Nov 13, 2013

 

+Mark Randall
He's just trying to make liberal friends? I think it had more to do with the fact that it was more consistent with his theory of government, and the fact that he put freedom first. Not to mention he wanted to see the decrease in crime and violence.

Mark Randall

Nov 13, 2013

+Jacob Gray
decrease in violence? what a lie

Jacob Gray

Nov 13, 2013

+Mark Randall
Look at the evidence, you'll see greater amounts of violence associated with the black market in areas where the War on Drugs is the most strictly enforced.

Mark Randall

Nov 13, 2013

+Jacob Gray
bullshit, what evidence

Jacob Gray

Nov 13, 2013

+Mark Randall
Try reading the article "Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review." It demonstrates how significantly shows how large of an impact the Drug Was has on violence.

Flame off

I tried to find a video followed by some debates about study abroad and I did find some but they are too old to be commented. Most of them were published before one year so I decided to comment on another topic which is related to mine.

The video I found on YouTube is Will College BAN Your Cell Phones. It is part of a show called TYT University and this part is about banning cell phones. More professors want to ban cell phones in class so this show did some research about using cell phones in class. The result shows that most people use cell phone to text and check social websites. The guest Lisa argues that professors should not ban cell phones. She lists sever reasons: college students are adults and they know what they are doing; it is your own thing that you waste time or waste money and no one cares.

Following the video, there are two main sides in the comments. People who support Lisa think that some people use cell phones to check lecture notes online and it is their own business whether they want to listen to the professors or play cell phones as long as they don’t distract others. Other people who think it is a good idea to ban cell phones list two main points. First of all, the result showed in this show tells us people seldom use cell phones to help their study. In addition, professors need to be respected.

Personally, I disagree with Lisa. As a comment I posted says, we should respect our professors and listen to them when they are talking. We all know that when others are talking to us, the polite way we should perform is looking into their eyes and listen carefully. Then why we can’t do this to our professor. The other point I made is banning cell phones help use control ourselves. We all know playing cell phones during classes is wasting time and wasting money, then why we keep doing that. It is because we don’t know how to control ourselves. So this measurement is right what we need to help us control ourselves. My conclusion is “banning cell phone is not only beneficial for professors but also for students.
Here is what I posted : 

I think it is a good idea to ban cell phones in class. I am a university student and I think I can understand the professors who hate their students playing cell phones when they are teaching.
 First of all, professors need to be respected. We would feel being neglected if people play phones while we are talking to them. So we should show some respect to our professors. Secondly, banning cell phones is a good way to help us control ourselves. We all know play cell phone games or chatting by social app is wasting time and wasting money, then why we still do that? It's just because we can't control ourselves very well. So this rule is helping us save time and money and also help us focus on our classes.
Banning cell phones is not only beneficial for professors but also for our students. So why not.

A user called “Slytheclaw” claims that students don’t even have to go to class because wasting money is your problem but you should not distract other people. Then I replied him that I agreed with him that distracting others is the worst thing to do in a class but we still need to attend classes and listen to professors. Since we know wasting money is a bad thing then why we don’t try to avoid it. Banning cell phones is a good idea to avoid wasting money. Another user “alonzo9772” thinks “it’s not the professors’ job to make sure every single person is listening to them” because most people in the class are only taking the class because it is a core requirement. I also replied to him. It is true that a lot of people take classes only for graduation but professors are also responsible for them. Professors are hired by colleges and they take the responsibilities of providing high quality teaching and helping their students become better. So banning cell phones is a way they try to do their jobs better.

Here are my two responses:
 Distracting others is the worst thing to do in a class but it's also not good if we don't listen to the professor or only focus on our cell phone. We should consider the professor's feeling. They need to be respected.

Although for the most time we take classes only because we need them to graduate, we still need to listen to the professor. I don't really understand why you think "it's not the professors' job to make sure every single person is listening to them". They are hired by colleges and of course they take the responsibilities of providing high quality teaching and helping their students become better. So banning cell phones is a way they try to do their jobs in a higher quality.

I also found a claim that  

"If a professor doesn't want cell phones in the classroom, then he should teach high school kids and not adults"

My response is "If a guy can't focus on a class and takes good use of time and money, he should go back to high school to learn some basic principles of life."

After reading all the comments, we found that some people argue that they need electronic equipment to take notes and they think it is an environment-friendly way to take notes. For this claim, I think it is kind of tampering the concept. The video is talking about cell phones instead of electronic equipment such as laptop and we don't really take notes by phones. So I wrote a comment as follow: 

 

It is reasonable to use a laptop in class but the thesis of this video is about cell phones and they are not the same. If we are confident about ourselves and we are sure we are able to control ourselves, using laptop to take notes is acceptable. But if we can't, taking notes by pens and papers is a good way to avoid keep checking social websites and chatting online with others.
But cell phones are not good tools to take notes, so taking notes here is just an excuse.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y-PyAphG28

Are NBA teams tanking season for freshman stars?

On tuesday night, some of the best freshman in the history of college basketball squared off in Chicago, and they put on a show. Lebron James, and Magic Johnson were two of the many stars who after the games were praising the young talent. GM's in the NBA would do anything to get a draft pick like Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker, but are NBA teams really blowing their seasons just for the chance to improve their team in the future? This article is based on argument by authority. ESPN brings in two of the most well respected college coaches in the game, who also happen to be the coaches of the freshman phenoms. They believe it would be a shame if American teams were blowing seasons.

As an American, I wouldn't like to think that an American team would want to lose or create situations where you would want to lose. I can't even fathom -- I can't go there. I can't believe that that would happen. Maybe I'm naive and I'm going to go read a fairy tale after this.

The quote above from Coach K expresses his disappointment in the thought of NBA teams blowing games. Bill Self, another one of the best coaches in the history of basketball could not believe they were throwing games. By bringing in some of the greatest basketball minds into the equation, many rumors of NBA teams taking their season will disappear because of this major AUTHORITY argument.

Juventus launch Scudetto missile

In this article, the author made a fact claim that the after beating Napoli in the league, the reigning champions Juventus showed their determination to win the title three-in-a-row. One of the evidence supported is the victory of Juventus against Napoli. This game had been the biggest Scudetto showdown of this season so far, and Juventus looked like a caged beast with hunger, beating Napoli 3:0. Since then, Juventus was in the second place of league table, falling behind Rome with one point. Also, the comments from player and coach from Juventus showed their confidence and ambition, and the comments from other side indicated the powerful controlling of Juventus. Another one of evidence is that the current leader in league Roma got a draw against Sassuolo, slowering their pace in the league table. With this analysis of argument, it was indicated that Juventus raised an alarm to all of their title rivals. The results of other games were also given as background information. 

http://www.football-italia.net/41648/juventus-launch-scudetto-missile

It’s ‘way past time’ for gay rights law

I read an article, “It’s ‘way past time’ for gay rights law” on CNN website. John Sutter claims that congress should pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This claim is definitely a policy claim. According to John, a majority of Americans in every state, even conservative states, supports legislation that would ban workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. He introduces several cases which some people are fired from their company because of the reason that they are homosexual. John mainly uses pathos to emphasize that homosexual people cannot be fired for being themselves. He provides a predicable rebuttal from opponents that some conservatives will trot out all manner of dated and discriminatory arguments to say the legislation isn’t needed or will cause unwanted problems. He refutes the predicable claim. He says that we have laws to protect people of different races, religions, and disabilities from being fired because of who they are. However, there is no federal legislation for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people. John insists that legislation to protect homosexual people is good for business. He suggests a quotation from Apple’s CEO to support his assertion, “We’ve found that when people fell valued for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to do the best work of their lives.” I think the author made great policy claim which really need these days. He also made great rebuttal to the predicable opposing claim. Being gay or lesbian doesn’t mean that they have low abilities. Dismissal for this reason is completely unfair.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/sutter-enda-senate-vote/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Flame off

Legalizing marijuana is my greatest care currently because one of my roommates is heavy marijuana user. I tried to find YouTube videos about marijuana illegalization. However, most of YouTube videos were about legalizing marijuana. There are always the videos which provide the benefits of marijuana and explain why marijuana has to be legalized. I immediately thought that this might reflects social phenomenon which support marijuana legalization. I started to worry about the fact that most of people assert legalizing marijuana as one of their rights without consciousness about harmful of marijuana legalization. Most of comments for the video ‘The Grassroots Effort to legalize Recreational Marijuana Use in Portland’ support legalization of marijuana for recreational purpose and celebrate Portland. I acknowledge that people support using of marijuana for some benefits; however, I personally think we should not legalize marijuana, especially for recreational purposes. I argued with John Kentor who strongly supports legalizing marijuana. Through argument between me and John Kentor, I wanted to arouse people to the dangers of legalizing marijuana. Because the comment which was written by John Kentor ties perfectly to my final research paper, I supported my claim based on the information to persuade him or her. I could also learn something new from John Kentor because he brought some great point that I didn’t think before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM_zI2ElG-A

Chinese Americans Protest across the US over Jimmy Kimmel’s “Kill Chinese” Skit

This article stated a fact claim that thousands of Chinese rallied in 27 cities in the United States to protest the recent comments about killing Chinese people on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” show. As evidences of the claim, Kimmel behaved a perceived anti-Chinese skit, in which he asked “Should we allow the Chinese to live?” and responded “interesting” to the child actor’s statement of "kill everyone in China" in order to resolve the 1.5 trillion U.S. national debt. His remarks followed hundreds of protesters outside the ABC headquarters in Burbank to call for Kimmel to be fired. 100,000 signatures were also gathered to call for a petition to the White House to investigate the “Jimmy Kimmel Live” show on the grounds of offensive content. The incident was organized by the Roundtable of Chinese-American Organizations, a small California-based outfit. This article used argument of analogy to state that this is the largest parade held by the Chinese community in the U.S., by comparing it with the last Chinese parade before the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, when the CNN commentator Jack Cafferty labeled Chinese leaders "goons" and "thugs". As rebuttals, this article mentioned that both ABC and Kimmel have apologized for the episode. However, chairman of the Roundtable of Chinese American Organization responded that they wanted a formal apology from ABC not just to the groups protesting, but to all Chinese people around the world.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1352947/chinese-americans-protest-across-us-over-jimmy-kimmels-kill-chinese-skit