Wednesday, November 13, 2013

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.
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.

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. 

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.

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