Monthly Archives: February 2013

eq: EQ: Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change? (Caoimhe TOPIC 2)

EQ: Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?
Background: NASA and NOAA along with other associations have stated that the greenhouse gas levels are rising due to human activity and use of fossil fuels.
Heartland Institute, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and more, have stated that the greenhouse gasses emitted are not sufficient to cause weather changes and that it is due to the increase in the sun’s heat.
Claim: Within recent years, the fear of global warming has increased. People have no one answer as to what may have caused this phenomenon. Some scientists believe that it is due to human activity, while others, who refuse to believe in global warming are saying that it was bound to happen eventually and it is due to causes out of our control. One might state that there are causes that are out of our control, however, the beginning of global warming and when it began to be a major problem is mainly due to human activity. One must question the notion that it is not our fault by asking about the increase in CO2 levels, our usage of finite resources and one can also ask how come this didn’t begin when dinosaurs walked the earth. If it really isn’t our fault those questions shouldn’t be relevant to this controversy, yet, they are.
Support: Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record, which stretches back to 1850. (National Geographic) That’s 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

EQ: Would legalizing the death penalty lead to a decrease in criminal activity? (Alyssa-TOPIC 2)

EQ: Would legalizing the death penalty lead to a decrease in criminal activity?
BACKGROUND: The death penalty dates back all the way to the 1700s B.C where it was originally proposed by the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi was an ancient Babylonian document that listed 25 crimes punishable by death. In 1775, all 13 US colonies enforced the death penalty law. Beginning around 1833 was when the death penalty began to be seen as unjust and cruel and it was in 1852 that Rhode Island banned the use of the death penalty for all crimes. Throughout the rest of the years, the death penalty was overviewed by Constitutionalists and Abolitionists who argued over whether it be preserved or abolished. Today, Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, and Texas are the five states that use the death penalty the most.
CLAIM: I personally feel as if the death penalty should be enforced in every state under strict rules. Many believe that the threat of imprisonment alone will deter criminal activity. Yet, were the death penalty to be appealed, such criminals might think twice of an act they are considering to do if they value their lives. The Earth is becoming gradually overpopulated and many people are resorting to crime. With the death penalty, people who have done wrong in the world will be removed and also send out a message that crime is wrong and will cost you your life if you succumb to such a path.
SUPPORT: “The recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives… Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh [and] Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders (268KB)…” [stated by David B. Muhlhausen]

5 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

EQ: Is drinking milk healthy for humans? (Matt N-TOPIC 2)

EQ: Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
BACKGROUND: Milk is one of the most popular drinks for everyday intake for health purposes. Milk is known for its calcium which helps build strong bones and helps cardiovascular health. Drinking milk prevents osteoporosis which leaves the body with fragile bones. Other researchers have been saying that milk is cancerous and can lead to calcium deficiency and obesity. It is said that milk is bad for allergies and the only reason it’s spoken good about is because companies are trying to advertise their products to be sold because there are other alternatives than cow’s milk.
MY CLAIM: Milk is healthy for humans to drink. If it was cancerous, we wouldn’t be drinking it every day and it wouldn’t be on the food pyramid. Without milk, we would all develop osteoporosis unless we all took other supplements of calcium. Milk helps cardiovascular and oral health. We‘d have unhealthy bodies without milk because most people won’t buy other supplements of calcium other than milk. Obesity cannot be an outcome of milk. People who are obese is, for the most part, due to their intake on meat and sweet/junk food, not milk. Arguing about milk being bad for allergies is an invalid argument because every person has a different allergy and if that argument is used, then every food that we eat would be considered harmful since many people are allergic to them.
SUPPORT: A researcher who wrote about the harm milk does to your body was diagnosed with osteoporosis. Her doctor told her to drink a lot of milk and take Fosamax. The researcher did none of the two because she said that they were both harmful to her. So, she is basically talking about how she does not drink milk because it’s bad for her bones, when she’s the one who was diagnosed with osteoporosis, how ironic (“Debunking The Milk Myth: Why Milk Is Bad For You and Your Bones”, saveourbones.com). Milk contains other important nutrients such as protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and fat. Lactose gives energy to the body which is found in carbohydrates (“Why is Milk Good for Your Health?”, nestle-family.com).

5 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

EQ: If used extensively over time, are cell phones safe for users? (Reginaldnae Topic 2)

EQ: If used extensively over time, are cell phones safe for users?
Background: A radiation level called radio frequency (RF) which is regulated by Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Scientific research has suggested that cell phones cause cancer. On April 3, 1973 there was a cell phone known as the brick produced by Motorola. The (RF) can reach a high harmful level to the human body. At the age eight children get twice the amount of radiation in their brain tissue the cause is adults due to their lower skull thickness.
Claim: Cell phones are not safe, because they cause accidents, brain tumors, and cause cancer. Cell phones should only be used for two-three hours a day. While talking on a cell phone then you have an enhanced chance of hitting someone and cause more damage to others. Cell phones are the number one most endangerment devices every created.
Support: Most car accident come from 25 using cell phones. Using cell phones while driving is just like driving while you drunk. Health risk from radiation affect the children the must. Using cell phones for a long time you could be hospitalized. When using a cell phone it really close to your heart. The batteries in cell phones can cause high explosive, if the battery gets hot. Cell Phones caused damaged in DNA and increased the risk of accidents. 2008 about 148.2 billion industry had a little over 270 million subscribers in the United States.

7 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

Is it unconstitutional to forbid felons the right to vote? (Johna TOPIC 2)

EQ:
Is it unconstitutional to forbid felons the right to vote?
Background:
Throughout American history there have been numerous court cases which concerned the right for felons to vote. Several of the more famous court cases are Thiess vs. State Administrative Board of Election Laws, Hunter vs. Underwood, Richardson vs. Ramirez, Farrakhan vs. State of Washington, and Madison vs. Washington. The issue of taking voting rights from felons is most often associated with the VIII, XIV, XV, and the XXIV Amendments. There has always been a large population of African Americans “doing time.” The act of declaring felons unable to vote has sometimes been viewed as a method of racial discrimination. Many of the Amendments put in place were created to protect minorities, such as African Americans, from discrimination. Jason G. Morgan Foster, a researcher at New York University School of Law stated that the felon disenfranchisement contradicted numerous phrases in the Constitution.
Claim:
Yes it is unconstitutional to deny felons the right to vote. Even though they have committed crimes, they are still American citizens. Everyone deserves a second chance. Starting with the Reconstruction of the South after the American Civil War, African Americans have become a major target for discrimination. Many African Americans were denied their right to vote by being imprisoned. In a utopian world it would make sense to take away the right to vote from those who obviously have no interest in the law, however in this flawed world we cannot be as naïve.
Support:
Amendment VIII (ratified 1791) Amendment XIV (ratified 1868) Amendment XV(ratified 1870)
Jason G. Morgan-Foster, JD, Researcher at New York University School of Law, stated in his 2006 article “The Transnational Judicial Discourse and Felon Disenfranchisement: Re-examining the Textual Premise of Richardson v. Ramirez,” published in the Tulsa Journal Comparative & International Law: “Interestingly, it appears that, like the international context, the Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] also viewed disenfranchisement along a continuum, intending the phrase ‘or other crime’ to apply only to crimes of rebellion or disloyalty to the state, such as treason. […] [W]e should care about felon disenfranchisement because it inherently contradicts the rest of our constitutional jurisprudence on the right of every citizen to vote. This article has suggested that it is time to re-examine the original textual premise of the Ramirez decision that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment affirmatively sanctions felon disenfranchisement.”
Gabriel J. Chin, JD, LLM, Professor of Law, Public Administration, and Policy at the University of Arizona, stated in his Jan. 2004 article “Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment?,” published in the Georgetown Law Journal: “Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape – leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement ‘may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one

2 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

EQ: Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change? (Toris-TOPIC 2)

EQ: Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?
Background: The global climate has been increasing year by year and people are starting to think that humans are the cause of global climate change because we have been emitting a lot of carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, a gas that absorbs heat, and when this it goes into the atmosphere it heats up the atmosphere
Claim: Humans are not the cause of global climate change because carbon dioxide does not cause global climate change and mankind does even not contribute to most of the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere.
Support: According to scientists there is no evidence that carbon dioxide causes global climate change and there are many other things that could cause global climate change. According to scientists solar flares could be a more reasonable reason for why global warming because it has evidence to back up the claim. Solar flares are eruptions with high amounts of radiation on the sun’s surface. When solar flares erupt on the sun some the intense heat that came from that eruption causes increases in heat here on earth.

7 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2

EQ: Should abortion be illegal? (Judy-TOPIC 2)

EQ: Should abortion be illegal?
Background: Abortion is something that many people feel strongly about. It still continues to split Americans after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision to Roe v. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right”. There are the people who think that it should be legal and it’s more of a choice to the person themselves. There are also people who feel like it should be illegal, and that abortion is murder.
Claim: Abortion is wrong, and should be illegal. It is basically murdering an innocent human being, and each individual person can make an impact in this world regardless if it were a small or large one. Imagine if one of the leader’s of our nation’s mother’s decided to have an abortion, taking that one life would have changed to world in an extremely different way. People should take responsibility for their actions. Making abortion illegal would make women more careful and conscious.
Support: It is understandable that sometimes mistakes happen, but studies showed that in 2006, 19-25% of women who had received an abortion had already had one or more abortions previously. Abortion involves killing an innocent human being. “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.” (University of Tennessee Health Science Center). There are over two million couples waiting to adopt babies, but there are only 134,000 US children that are available to adopt as of June 22. So, instead of having an abortion the mother could give up their babies to a couple that can’t conceive one of their own.

9 Comments

Filed under Controversial Issue #2