Monday, April 26, 2010
Week of 26 April
I feel that we made good progress last week. I will remind you not to cut and paste either from your own outline or from one of your sources, but for the most part, your posts were substantive attempts to deal with the need issue. This week, I'd like you to deal with a different stock issue--the practicality/workability of the solutions. You do not have to address solutions you favor. If you prefer, you can simply choose real solutions that represent alternatives and show how they are impractical or unworkable. Also, please look for my comments. I'm going to post devil's advocate arguments for each of the topics and I would like you to respond to them instead of only to your fellow students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sporting Events Such
as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good
Week of April 26th - April 30th
My debate isn't a need issue, plan, practical . . .. But I do, in my con, have plans, so I have practical and workable. My first plan is too design a fine through the Olympic Committee, World Cup Committee. This will make the athletes that commit bad sportsman ship pay a large fine. This is practical because bad sportsman ship is a big enough issue that their will not be much controversy over the fine - will take less time, cost less money. It is workable because no one likes to be fined. (It has to be a large fine because pro athletes are rich.) My second (and final) plan is to set permanent locations for summer and winter games, and World Cup to cut cost. (There will be several venuess scattered throughout the world and every few Olympics or World Cup venues will be reused.) This is practical because less time and money will be spent to build venues and the countries will not have to fight about hosting games because many will. And it is workable for the same reason, this plan will cost cost because less building is needed. There are side effects to both plans but I don't have to mention them.
Mr Jarrell -
I don't think your con argument was very persuasive because you made it sound like: yes the Olympics do more harm than good but that doesn't matter because . . . The question is do the Olympics do more harm than good not should we get rid of the Olympics, if that were the question your argument would be good. I think the con argument should be why the problems aren't that big of a deal, how good they are, and how accurate the committees are.
I'll post on my classmates later.
Haddon
ReplyDeleteCriticism
Jordana (You are the only one right now)- THere is one flaw in your plan that i spotted out almost immediatly. Where do these predetermined olympics locations go? Who Picks them? What happens right now is that countries sign up to host the olympics and one gets picked. Wont the other countries be mad at not having the chance. Won't there perhaps be acts of violence. I know im probably using some logical fallacy right now, but you have to realize that it is not just the athletes and the area that the olympics affect, it can be the entire world. Secondly, how will you decide how large the fine is? And how does this stop every person from cheating.. The person knows its illegal and knows they can get in a lot of trouble, but for them the risk is worth taking to win that gold and get million in endorsements.
Haddon
ReplyDeleteMy Plans and how they a P/W
Obviously I have no plan for my Con, seeing as hwo the pplan there is to do nothing, but I still need a P/W for that, so here goes...
If something is to be done about CEOs, it should be done about what they are, not the paycheck they are recieving. Taking money away from them will do nothing but give them incentive to take more money. They will be hurting the shareholders and workers even more. If we give more power to shareholders, say let them decide the CEOs salary, the pay will continue to go up. IN Europe new security laws did just this, gave more power to shareholders. And whatya know? CEO pay still went up. By doing nothing we are preventing a problem triple the size of what it is already. You dont want to whack the alligator thats biting your leg, youll just make it angrier.
Pro- My plan for pro was to decide upon a certain percent of the company that the CEO could be payed or be taxed if the pay went over that. THis is actually used by the MLB, if a player is being payed mroe than a certain % of the team the team is taxed. The CEO may only be payed 5% of the company, if it is a public company (which it must be if it has a CEO). Some say the government cannot control the free market, but it can place a tax upon a public company. This plan will work for 1 reason. If the CEO does well the company will do well, raising the CEOs paycheck, the shareholders value, and the companies value. It would in fact hurt the CEO to fake results, because the CEO would then go to jail if results were faked.
Jaxx/Whitey J/Bossman
ReplyDeleteHaddon:Just because something didn't work in Europe won't mean that it won't work in United States. Just because the CEO will do well dosen't nessecary mean that the company will do well. Also, where are your numbers coming from. You are just saying random numbers that you can be made up. But if those numbers are true than you did a nice job using them. Acept, those errors you had a lot of good information. I think you could of talked about practible/workable a little more but for the most part nice job.
Jaxx Ottinger/Bossman/Whitey J
ReplyDeleteI found the goals of being in Afghanistan.
And it is my plan pretty much.
It could be my pro and con plan but it is more of my con plan.
Goals
1.Is to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida don't prodject any threats against United States from their region. And to do that he said he needs more troops.
2. We also, need to deal with the situation in Pakistan and that terrorists defintialy can operate with relative freedom of movement.
This is Obamas plan and goals, and I think they will defintialy work. Also, with this plan we are doing both sides. We are going to send more soliders to fight and then after 3 years we are going to withdraw so we are going to do both things. Also, Obama said that his goal wasn't winning against Afghanistan. He said he didn't want to take over the country. He said he wants to get out of their as quickly as he can so he can help the Afghans govern themselves and provide for their own security.
That plan is pracible because we can afford to send more soliders to Afghanistan to fight. We can also afford to hunt down the Taliban group and also get al Quadea. And make them not make any threats to come do a terrorist attack. This plan is workable because we can get to Afghanistan without a problem. We can afford to get their. We can actually win, and it also makes it easier because we don't have to win to get our goals that we want. So it is Practible and Workable becuase of those reasons.
Whhhhaaaaacccccccchhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa
ALEX
ReplyDeleteHealth Care
In this debate, I don't see how my plan can't be the proposition! The proposition is Congress should pass health care now. So, I don't how my plan isn't the proposition.
So, going with the proposition as my plan:
Pro: The practicallity of my plan:
Cost: With my plan, health care will cost less
Time: It will cost less over the next ten years
(I have a question, do I say what I just said, or whether or not taking action in the plan will take time or money?)
If so, there is no cost in the action of creating the bill and (since the health debate started around a year ago) it took about a year to pass. (That's the time and cost of the action of passing the bill. The one above is the cost and time of what the plan does. I'm not sure which one to use)
Workable: (I restate all the pros of the Obama Health Care Plan and why it is going to help us) I won't go into a lot of details, but I say that it helps millions of uninsured people, it gives garauntees of insurance companies, it costs less.
For con: my plan is to make a new bill that corrects all the cons of the health plan (I won't go into all the details of that, though)
Practicallity: (Again, I'm not sure which one to use) In the action of passing the bill, it won't take any cost and it may take a lot of time to make a new one (I'm going to say for proof that it may take long that it took a long time to pass this one)
The practicallity of a new bill is that it the new bill will probably cost the same amount of money as Obama Care and take the same amount of time to take effect as Obama Care
The workabllity of making a new bill is: I restate all of the cons of Obama Care (26 year olds may not be able to afford coverage without being on parents' plan yet, doesn't include a cost limit to drugs and tests given by doctors that may not be needed by patient, still some people not on coverage, and the government can't afford to pay subsidies/medicare/medicaid for all people who can't afford it (they are already in tons of debt!)
Mr. Jarrell, you said you would post the arguements, and since you didn't give a health care one in class (at least I really don't think you did) I don't have anything to comment on for that. I'll do it next week, if you give it to me, though.
COMMENT ON CLASSMATE:
Jordana:
I think that the inly flaw you have is that your plan is kind of vague. Who determines what is bad sportmanship or not? And what do you think is classified as bad sportmaship?
Also, I think that you saying there won't be controversy over who holds the games is incorrect. Countries bid over who gets to host the games, and it brings pride to countries who get to host it. I think that setting ONE particular place isn't going to cut it. I know that it will cost less and be workable, but not letting different countries host it IS a little unfair. (Isn't one of the goals of the Olympics for everybody to unite and play fair?) Also, it denies the countries (who aren't chosen to host) the pride of hosting.
I thought of something else, while typing that last sentence, but I forgot it while typing that last sentence. (Repetitive, I know)
Oh, well.
I guess that's all I have to say.
ADIOS!
Mohammed when you post, say what mr.j told us to do and wright because I forgot my notebook in school. So post what we had to do. i'm counting on you. Just in case you don't know what i am talking about it was when he said all of the topics for each debate so post it. Please. Or Lauren say it.
ReplyDeleteWhhhhhaaaaaaaaacccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa
Dhruv K. Patel
ReplyDeleteOlympics Debate
As Jordana said already, our debate doesn't really have a Plan.So i will just use the tiny example of a plan (kind of) to fill up space
Plan: To keep drugs from being tested in the Olympics, they first make the athletes sign a waiver, get a urine sample,test to see if the sample matches the ID of the person, and finally test to see if the person took drugs using the urine.
Pro: (Con Drug Test)
Practical:
This plan is not practical because there will be controversy and a lot of good athletes will be banned because of this.
Workable:
This plan is not workable because there will always be a way to pass the drug test.For example, people could take some other drug or something that made the steroids "invisible"
Con (for plan)
Practical:
This plan is practical because it is required so unless an athlete doesn't want to get in the Olympics, the will have to take the drug test.
Workable:
This plan is workable because it does work right now. Right now, drug testing is not a big issue. Also,, it is a very complex procedure which makes it a more trustworthy plan.
Comments:
Jaxx/Whitey J/Bossman
I really don't think that the taliban and al quida are going to stop threatening just becuase we get more troops. Also, i think that it will cost too much to send and feed troops. If you didn't do it already, you could put this in your side-effects.
Mr j:
I think that the argument that the Olympics are loved so all the hatred doesn't matter is wrong. I think this because if in the future, the Olympics are used for terrorism (which they probably are) then it won't be fun. Right now it's not that bad. But in the future, it probably will get worse.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteIn New York!!!!
Concrete jungle where dreams are made of,
There's nothing you can’t do,
Now you're in New York!!!
These streets will make you feel brand new,
the lights will inspire you,
Let's hear it for New York, New York, New York
(I copied and pasted it)
Neil
ReplyDeleteIn my blog, I will address how practical and workable my plan is for pro, and how impractical and unworkable the pro plan is for con. Then I will responnd to the con argument that you gave each of us.
Pro: My plan for pro is to balance the budget through the lowering of spending and the raising of taxes. It will take a long time to balance the budget and diminish national debt in the long run, but if the Congress tries to lower spending over time, the budget will be balanced. The Congress must continue to make spending freezes and slowly raise taxes in order for the budget to be balanced. The plan is workable because, if the Congress is successful in raising taxes and cutting spending, then the budget has to be balanced because the outlays and the revenue of the government will balance out to a lower deficit. If the budget is balanced each year, then debt will slowly be payed off.
Con: I do not think the plan of raising spending or lowering taxes or even prioritizing balancing the budget is practical at all because a major reason that the Great Depression occured is because the government and the people started to hoard money and stop spending. Then, people stopped producing things, and unemployment shot up to more than 25%. If everybody doesn't spend money, there will be no flow of the economy (businnesses won't recieve any money and unemployment will go up). The plan to balance the budget is unworkable. This is not a question of whether the plan is good, but why we really need to change. If we cut spending and raise taxes, we won't be solving anything of priority. We must raise spending in order to create jobs (more people are needed to produce things) and raise payroll tax. This will fix the real problem: our major programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are failing. If payroll tax goes up, government will have enough money to spend on these programs. However, if we balance the budget, unemployment will go down. Finally, we can't increase taxes because in the past (during the Reagan administration), tax revenue has gone up with income taxes slightly lower.
Mr. J: The argument that you gave me in class is basically the same as my argument: that balancing the budget is a long term issue. If we lower spending, there will essentially be less jobs. For example, government cut manned space flight to the moon for NASA and people lost their jobs. I think this con argument is very strong.
Neil
ReplyDeleteCriticism for Jordana,
Your basic arguments are
1. We should put a fine on Olymics participants with bad sportsmanship.
2. We should set which country the olympics should be held permanently.
There are flaws with both of the plans. Who decides what bad sportsmanship? Even if participants are fined, because they have so much money, will the fine solve anything (stop them from having bad sportsmanship)? For the second thing, every country wants to host the olympics and the Olympics being in the same place every year defeats the purpose. Everybody wonders where the next olympics are going to be and if they are in the same place eache year, they will become boring. Also, countries will not be happy to hear that they can never host the Olympics. Finally, I think that you should adress something about people taking drugs in the Olympics in your plan.
New York!!!
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteWe should withdraw forces from Afghanistan
Pro Plan:
Obama has said that we should send 34,000 troops to finsih the job and then send them back in 2012
Pratical/Workable
This isn't very practical because because sending 34,000 troops at one period of time will cost alot and be a huge vulnerbility for the U.S troops to be attacked upon
Also it is workable because we can kill all the terrorists and then leave
This is good because we will have the support of 34,000 troops to kill of a couple of thousands of afghans
This means each troops will be more supported and have a less chance of dying
Con Plan
My plan for this is to stay as long as it takes to eathier make peace with this country or destroy it until it surrenders
Also to cut the budjet we should get rid of support troops like people that count inventroy and let troops do that so we can save money
Also to be more supported and waste less time we sould use General McChrystal's plan which is to to leave isolated areas this will help us from killing inocent families and save our time
one sideeffect is that al-quadea could use this against us
Practical/Workable
It's practical because we won't have to move a limb
We will be saving money by cutting these support troops
theres on part thats not practical whic his to stay there as long as it takes because we can't stay forever and thats why we should destroy them until they surrender
It is workable because it will solve the non existing problem
Jaxx:
ReplyDeleteYour plan you said is to send more troops like obamas and you said we can afford it. Idon't know if you know this but we have spent, more like wasted billions of dollars for this al-quadea and Taliban which we might have already destroyed. And jaxx we have already won against the nation but there are men thats familys we have killed who want to kill Americans and will give their life to do so. which is by suicide boming that is
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteJaxx i wouldn't leave u out to hang like that b ight so this is a straight up og thing for me to back u up wen u need it
if u say watchaa one more time imma beat ur ass though
Mr J i can't remember it clearly but i think the propasition was like we pulled out of europe in 1815 and it did so much damage now if we have seen in hisotry that pulling out of nations that we have treaty with results in harm why should not do it now or something.
I think this wrong becaasw tthis was over a hundred years ago and a lot has changed. U.S have a much better army, navy, etc. and people would think twice before coming to invade us but with the Afghan s there are crazy with there religion and they are marters and they will give there life to disrupt america of just kill less than 100 people. So in Afghansitan the same principles don't aply as in any other place
James
ReplyDeleteNuclear Reactors debate
this is not the cmplete practical/ workable/ plan
Pro: plan for pro. in my plan i say i wish to build and encourage the use of nuclear reactors. and these nuclear reactors would be small compared to the old ones, and these small reactors would recycle the waste for things like powering nuclear bombs or reactors.
this is not the whole plan in detail but its something you can picture.
Practical: my plan would work. b/c these smaller reactors already have plans and we can come up with technoligy capible to recycle this waste.
Workable:it can be a solution to clean energy b/c it doesn't give off carbon emissions. which causes damage to the o-zone layer. also if we were to to use the recycled waste we be able to save money to power nuclear bombs and maybe reactors.
hope that was okay i also going to do con.
Con: plan: so for my con plan i am not getting rid of nuclear reactors but i'm encouraging and building other sources of clean energy such as wind mills, solar panels, electric and hybrid cars. and a few other things.
Practical: Yes my plan is practical because we can be spend money on build many wind mills electir cars, and solar panels,instead of one Nuclear reactor.
Workable: this is a solution to clean energy. because nuclear reactors may not give off carbon emissions, but the waste can be dangerous to the water, building the reactor give off carbon emissons because of the machines that help build it.
Mo
your right about your plan not being practical, but i don't agree that your plan is workable ither. you see we cant just go in afganistan and shoot terrist. want to know why we can't find them. And you really want to get rid of support troops. are you also talking about the troops that inspect everything so they dont blow up or back fire. i want to hear a response from you. want to know why b/c when i when i first read in the news paper about obama sending in troops to Afganistan (yes sometimes i do read the newspaper) i wanted to see what was goin to happen to make sure he sends in less troops than Iraq. i dont know the point is i want to know why you'd get rid of the ppl that make sur everything works.
hai
ReplyDeletefor those of you asking questions im CALEB.
CALEB CHAPMAN
IN THE 7TH GRADE.
CALEB
hi
Pro: Practical
My pro plan is to stop using only fossil fuels and start using more nuclear power and renewable. We wouldn't completely stop using fossil, just less.
This plan is entirely do-able. We have already started to build renewable energy sources and nuclear reactors. There should be no problem having to do it again.
Workable:
The main problem is global warming. Global warming is mainly being caused by air pollution. In fact, only air pollution. Burning fossil fuels creates gases that go into our atmosphere and destroy it. If we stop using so many fossil fuels then we can stop polluting as much.
hey mo. QUIT USING TEXT SLANG HERE. THIS IS FOR SCHOOL, YOUR NOT TEXTING.
ReplyDeleteCon: Practical:
my con argument is that nucear reactors would be to difficult (time/money) to reasonably consider.
My plan is to keep using fossil fuels. We can do that.
Workable: This would not solve the issue to global warming, clearly it wouldn't. But nuclear reactors would cost way to much, and add to pollution. We still don't know what to do with the waste produced by the reactors.
@James--Pro
ReplyDeletewe still haven't found how to deal with nuclear waste yet. Our answer is to hide it in tombs for future generations to deal with.
Also even if we did recycle waste i don't think there would be enough power left to power a BOMB. Another question is WHY WOULD YOU WANT BOMBS?
james to caleb
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2007/12/Recycling-Nuclear-Fuel-The-French-Do-It-Why-Cant-Oui
this site is one that you may have
read paragraphs 3-6 and it talks about how france rexycles its nuclear waste as fuel. and maybe recycling the waste to fuel a nulear bomb is ridiculus but we can recycle it
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteDear Mr J,
For some reason i posed and it wont post for a 3rd time hear.
This statement is false this is because it is saying it is all the republicans fault. the President now for example is the fault. Obama is not focusing on the real problem he is just dictating. Obama can not take the troops away from Israel or else the Muslim are going to come and take Israel into nothingness.This needs to stop Israel is a leader in technology when we where getting cellphones in the us kids all ready had them in Israel. We need to help Israel.
Haddon's Post
ReplyDeleteCriticism of Emily's Criticism
Emily, I am seriously confused by what you mean by "taking into nothingness". And I'm sure that Israel is one of the top leaders of techonology in the world. In this rebuttal you dont even state what the real issues are. By the way, Muslims are not a country, they are a religious group. Just because someone at the current time is leader does not mean those troubles are our fault. IT was not Obama who got us involved in Iraq, It was Bush, a REPUBLICAN. Just saying. and pointing out major flaws :P.
James's post about Emily's post agreeing with haddon's post in some way
ReplyDeletei agree with Haddon. but it is the democrats fault for Afganistan. (i real dont know what i'm saying but i figure i say something) and it seems to me that Japan is ahead in technology not weaponry. and i think i'm right but cell phone were seen in th US in 1973 and i've looked around online and websites say Israel got there cell phones in 1996. i dont believe that year is right but i do believe that the US got cell phones before Israel. Israel does have an army. i real just wanted to post because i've been looking to see if anyone else posted a post on my posts. so i dont know if i'm right about any of this, but Emily.............. I'd like to see what your going to be talking about in your debate or next post, because i dont know what this has to do with your debate.
James
ReplyDeletei want to post something. don't count this against me but you can count it for me.
So early tonight I was flipping through channels on TV and i was watching abc news those who read this may not believe me but i do. so then i went to fox news, both these channels had nothing on them but bad weather in Tennessee (acully there is a life threating storm there) and there were some car accidents. so the show after was................the simpsons. so as i was watching this Homer was at work, a nuclear power plant. and Mr. Burns his boss found out that the place where he stored the nuclear waste was full so he he got his assistant to place the pultonium from the waste in Homer's bag. Later Homer went to a bar of some sort and left the bag with the pultonium in it. people thought it was a bomb and the police blew the bag up and there was a big explosion. So now what you read was a summary of what i thought was important in my debate. it showed to me atleast in some way that we are running out of space for were we store waste. And also that there are terrorist risks in Nuclear reactors. So this is my second blog today cause i was still waiting to see if anyone posted anything about my blogs and the only person probably reading this is Mr. J so to give a suggesttion on what we talk about tomorrow would be the bombing that almost happened in time square just a suggestion. and also if you saw the interview of the guy who saw the car with no driver was a guy selling purses. leave a comment.