Rebuttal to Alyssa

In Alyssa's topic about the number of required years of school, her thesis states that, “the number of years of required schooling should be changed - not increased or decreased, but altered so that it fits the students.” She feels that their years of school should be the same as how academically smart they are. this already is confusing because if it can't increase nor decrease, then it can't be alter without change. If it should change, then how can it not decreased or increased. However, she supports her thesis with, 

"However, students are currently being assigned to "grades" based upon their age. They are expected learn at the same pace as the rest of their peers and to graduate to the next "grade" every year - their learning speeds are not taken into account."

This has confusion in it because of the fact that if they are assigned due to how they do well academically, then at what point should they stop going to school. When should they stop learning in order to move into working. learning at the same pace might give comfort to students because there won't be a hue age gap between the students of the same grade.

"This expectation eventually leads to negativity - students begin to compare themselves to their peers and forget to factor in their differing individualities. They feel superior when comparing themselves to less academic peers and inferior when comparing to more academic peers."

 This couldn't support her point well because the students will compare themselves either way, no matter how and where they are put. if it is based on academic level, they would still compare themselves to those who are higher than them and to those who are lower than them. It will increase comparison of students because the system of school year based on academic level can create a huge gap to those of the same age. Having to be in the same grade as someone who is the same age might give comfort to the student rather than being in a grade level with people of different age. The oldest in that class might feel really stupid while the youngest might feel super smart.
    In conclusion, Alyssa have strong points but it is not clear and there are many confusions with her points.

Animal Farm

            In “Animal Farm”, George Orwell emphasized how language is important to the pigs that need to persuade the other animals. Language is a tool for communication and in the story, the animals communicate with one another. Major uses his trust from the animals to gain their attention while snowball uses friendliness to gain attention.

            Major is an old pig at the beginning of the story. He is considered wise and intelligent by the animals of Manor farm. Due to his old age, many animals respects him; they were willing to rest a little less just to hear him speak. He already had the trust of the animals so gaining attention from his audience is easier. He used his knowledge to convince the lower animals, “I do not think, comrades, that I shall be with you for many months longer, and before I die, I feel it my duty to pass on to you such wisdom as I have acquired,” (Orwell 28). His tone of wisdom allows the animals to believe everything he said, word per word. Moreover, his respect from the animals gave him more advantage. His language was affective in communicating with the animals because it was during the time when the animals are still suffering from humans. Animals seek change at that time because they couldn't stand suffering but they did not know what to do. During that time, having someone wise and more knowledgeable allows interest from the lower animals and Major's “dream” helped grow curiosity from the lower animals.

            Snowball, on the other hand, who was a young pig in the beginning of the story, could not use the trust from the animals to persuade. He needs to gain it first. He is a pig, who, among a few other pigs, studied the ways of human to plan the rebellion. Snowball is, “ a more vivacious pig than Napoleon, quicker in speech and more inventive, but not considered to have the same depth of character,”(Orwell 35). He acts as a representative of the lower animals and plan according to the animals' necessity and what they would favor. He and Napoleon debates a lot but he was still able to convince the lower animals. When discussing about the principle of Animalism, Snowball said that four legs are good, and those who stand on two legs are bad. The birds, who stood on two legs disagrees and argues. Snowball, who took into account of the animal's needs said, “A bird's wing … is an organ of propulsion and not of manipulation … the distinguishing mark of man is the hand, the instrument with which he does all his mischief,” (Orwell 51). Snowball's speeches always care about the well being of animals and tries his best to see what benefits the animals. His position is somewhat like a president because he represents the animals' needs, although the other pigs are also doing the same thing. Snowball's idea always gain the majority of the vote.

             Snowball also uses the word “comrade” a lot to convince the lower animals. It is effective because it makes it so that he is equal to the animals and does not possess more power than the animal. Using this, the animals will not see him as a tyrant but as a representative who is the voice of all the animals. His friendliness allows the other animals to trust him and to understand that Snowball can help them by improving their lives in any ways possible; he gains respect slowly from the other animals.
             In conclusion, both Major and Snowball uses different type of language and tone to persuade the lower animals. Major uses a more formal way, somewhat acting like a wise elder trying to lead freedom for all animals while Snowball uses a more friendly approach to gain the trust of his audience.

Debate Topic: Is Wikileaks overall more harmful or more beneficial to society?

Wikileaks is basically a website where people everywhere can go online to see the latest news. It is a site meant to leak the truth out. They have “We help you safely get the truth out” in big blue font on their homepage. Many people consider Wikileaks as bad because it reveals stuff that wasn’t meant to be revealed. Well, I think that it is beneficial to society: our democratic society, and societies ruled by corrupted governments.

            America is a free country where the government is ruled by the people, a democratic government. The topic of whether or not political power corrupts those who attains it is related to this debate. If it is a government ruled by the people, then the people should at least know everything that the government is doing. There are no secret from the government and the people. Wikileaks helps keep the government in check. Our government would not be a democracy if the government has their own agenda and the people know nothing about it. It is helpful to us because we are in charge of our country and our government.

            Moreover, in other countries, it might also be helpful too because it gives a little confidence to the people to stand up for themselves and to do something about their corrupted government. It might also be a site that inspires people to keep their corrupted government in check. Just like the recent event of people setting themselves on fire and starting a rebellion because the news of their government was leaked out online. News of how corrupted the government was had been revealed and it angered many people. They couldn’t take it anymore to the point that one person set himself on fire. This might seem bad, but it revealed the truth that wasn’t meant to be kept a secret forever. If the truth wasn’t heard and people continued with their life, many people might suffer to death. It’s better to have people keep their government in check early than later. Worse things could’ve happened to those people if the corrupted government continues to rule. All in all, I think that Wikileaks is helpful to society in maintaining peace and giving people power and confidence.

Power Corruption

 In my opinion, I think that those who obtain political power can eventually be corrupted but in the end, it depends on the individual. In history, it's true that many people who obtain power slowly becomes corrupted. An example would be Mao. Once he became the ruler of China, he tortured his own people and ruled with an iron fist. Even if one already holds power, due to human selfishness of wanting more, they would try to obtain stronger power, which is to take over neighboring countries.

Even though people do misuse the power, there are also people who don't. An example would be the George Washington. He led America to freedom from the British Empire, and gain the trust of many Americans. He could've took over and start the rule of tyranny, after all, he had everything he needs: trust of the military. Even though he could've, he didn't. Instead, when war is over, he went back to farming and stayed true to his loyalty in wanting a free America.

It varies from individuals whether or not they will be corrupted. Obtaining too much power can be a bad thing because it is hard to control and it leads to overconfidence. Holding an extreme amount of power is a huge responsibilities because it leads to arrogance and wanting more control.

I think George Orwell might agree with me that there are some people who attains political power can misuse it. When one holds power, they live a luxurious life while others who are less powerful will have to work day and night just to provide a meal.

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing ... He sets them to work, he gives back to the bare minimum that will prevent from starving, and the rest he keeps to himself,”(Orwell 29).

Human nature itself is cruel. Selfish desire to be better than the rest, to be powerful, and to be the boss of everyone. Tyrants holds power and they misuse it. They live in a luxurious life from all the hard work that thousands of people worked for to provide their families a roof to live under. Having power makes tyrants lazy only wanting to give out order and not work.  

Free Post

After looking at visual images and what it does to society in Writing Two this week, I decided to say something about it. Women are definitely judge more on their appearance and are viewed as weak; the media advertises stuff that sometimes indirectly portrays men’s dominance. Women have to face the pressure of being judged and are more likely to suffer from violence of some sort. After reading “Two Ways Women Can Get Hurt” (or something like that), I felt that the author exaggerated a bit. She wrote about how women are view as objects and that men are cruel but I disagree with it. Men are also the victims as well. Men must face the pressure of being judge through whether they have muscle or not and their fashion. Fashion is something that we all are judged upon and are criticized the most on. The media shows images of people that we think of as models for us to become. For men, the model would be buff, tall, and strong, while for women, it would be slim, super skinny, and big breasts. The media does this to try and sell products. Sometimes, when some ads show up on the laptop, the images looks like they are trying to advertise people rather than products.

Moreover, I seriously want to question the people who models for those ads. Some of the women are sometimes naked in the ads. I seriously want to ask them how much they are willing to go in order to get fame and money. Are they willing to strip and have their pictures taken?

Also, I think that it is a bit unfair that if some men sleeps with many women, they are considered a player and somewhat attractive while if women sleeps with many men, they are called prostitutes, whores and sluts. To some men, sex is like a game to them and after they have what they want, they would dump their current girl with another one. I think that some women have it hard because if they did have sex before marriage, they would be looked down in society.

seven debate response

After reading all seven of the debates, I found that all of them have errors and aren’t really persuasive but since I have to talk about one, I will talk about “Skip the Admission Game” by Kevin Carey. It really wasn’t persuasive and after reading it, I was confused on what it was trying to persuade. The first half of the article is about if a person is rich, then they should go to an elite school, while the second half of the article talks about how poor people should think of alternatives rather than try to go to an elite school. “If you're among the small handful of students who have stellar SAT scores and parents with several hundred thousand dollars to spend, you should seriously consider going to an elite college or university,” (Par. 1).This is one of the factors that I found unpersuasive because it’s like saying rich people should go to rich school while poor people should stick to poor schools. I feel that it is like trying to persuade people to continue to divide the line between the poor and the rich. Even though the poor may not have enough money, they can find other ways to allow them to go to an elite school. Moreover, Carey said, “If, on the other hand, you're not one of those people -- and the odds are very high that you're not -- your decision-making will be somewhat more complicated,” (Par. 4). It would have been a bit persuasive because not having enough money can be trouble in deciding but to say the odds of something and cutting off the thoughts of it sounded offensive to the poor. It also ignores the fact that there are scholarships that elite schools provide for trouble like money issues. Overall, this is the least persuasive article.

The most persuasive, the one that actually is a little persuading to me is the article “What You Do vs. Where You Go” by Martha(Marty) O’Connell. It is overall better than the rest though it does have factors that make it unpersuasive. Near the middle, she states, “The key to success in college and beyond has more to do with what students do with their time during college than where they choose to attend,”(Par. 4) with a source following it afterward. She cites her source as well as giving a link to it to show us that she isn’t making stuff up. it was somewhat persuasive because earlier in her article, she describes an activity that some people did and gives some examples of famous people who didn’t attend college.

Response to "Too Much Is Not So Good"

I found a few stuff on Shiyun’s blog that I agreed on:

“Most high school students are pressured to get the best grades in the class and get accepted into the best colleges. They would spent most of their time studying and reading most of the time.  We should enjoy the time that we have until we become adults. We should reserve some time to have some fun and laugh with friends.”

The pressure to get into college is increasing and it makes students feel as if they need to spend every moment of their life to study and get good grades. It also pressured them to cheat in order to do well like their peers. The pressure is stressful and sometimes, going to the best colleges might be a wrong choice. It varies from students to students due to their strengths and their interests. Not every single students need to aim for the best college.

            Moreover, what is a good college? Is an elite school really rich and provides many resources. Do they have smart students there? A good college is different depending on people’s views. Furthermore, every student is smart. I don’t think that society should separate the students as either smart or dumb. Everyone holds different potentials. Some students might not be able to show it yet because they haven’t discovered it themselves.

            Also, the fact that our time to play and mess around is limited as well. we spend nineteen years to be kids. After that, we might spend almost eighty years acting as adults. With the increase pressure to study, our lives are mostly wasted since one third of our time is dedicated to sleeping. Another third would be for work or school. We have one third of our life left and that is the time we should spend on enjoying our life to the fullest. If we don’t spend time with families and friends, we would repeat our day over and over again which is really dull. We should spend time since our life is short. Our time to be with family members are limited because we can’t guarantee that they will be with us till we die.