College is the plan after high school for many Americans as it is an investment in their future, but when this investment cripples them for the decades to come is it worth it? In the United States, there are 45 million borrowers of student loans who owe collectively 1.6 trillion in student debt. This puts student loan debt second in the category of consumer debt with mortgages coming in at first. This is becoming a problem in the United States as millions of students are taking on the next steps towards college millennials and Gen Z generation making up a huge portion of those who do take those next steps, but also taking the challenges that come with it like student loans. Taking a closer examination at the student loan crisis one must put in question what the problems could be causing this could it be the millennials fault, government, or is this just a process millions of Americans must go through to get ahead in life? 

Student loans are types of loans that students take out to help pay for post-secondary education including tuition, fees, textbooks, or anything else that a student may need help paying for while in college. Many of these loans come with an interest rate depending on the type of loan that one decides to take out and don’t have to be repaid till after graduation. Currently, there are 45 million borrowers of student loans who owe collectively a total of 1.6 Trillion in student debt. The average student will come out of college with about 33,000 in student loans and while many argue that this is an investment student must take to get a future education other Americans like Nick believe millennials are to blame for such an outstanding student loan debt. 

“It is getting harder and harder to feel sympathy for kids born between 1981 and 2012.” Millennials have been the scapegoats of many things wrong within America as they are often labeled as lazy. The article “Are millennials to blame for their own student debt” Nick Gillespie attempts to blame on students for ringing up such an enormous debt when graduating. He makes some valid points like its students’ responsibility to know how much money they are going to borrow, how much should be repaid, and how long these payments will continue after graduation. This is a valid point as student loans are investments that stick with you through all of college and for many Americans stick with them for years after college. Although this is a valid point other people like Nick Ducoff argue that the lack of knowledge of student debt is the government’s own fault.  

In an article written in CNBC, Nick Ducoff writes “government spends a great deal of money to prevent teen drinking, but we are still enablers of student loan use” while Gillespie argues that the blame is all on millennials Ducoff pushed back on this idea as he believes that there is not enough information being put out in the media, schools, states to show how exactly student loans work. He furthers his point stating that there is not an adequate education, information, and system to help students and families make smarter choices when it comes to these loans. While both articles have valid and strong points some flaws that come with each as Wisley Whistle states in an article “Millennials and student debt.” She strengthens Gillespie’s argument about millennials being at fault as she argues the poor performance students have in college. “Institutions are plagued with dismissals, thus creating low job placement” here we see the common theme of the label that gets put on millennials in this case she hints at the idea that the reason these student loans are not getting paid is that these students don’t work hard enough. She strikes two more valid points as to why the blame of student loans is all on millennials stating, “when millennials with no college degree, lost their job some decided to pursue a graduate degree, often with loans.” This point strengthens both Gillespie and Whistle’s argument as this shows millennials adding more loans to the loans they already had.  

While both arguments do indeed have valid standing Anie Doris from “ChicagoBoothReview” takes the pressure off the millennials and instead puts that pressure on the government just like Nick Ducoff. Dorris takes a close examination of government policy. “1980s and 2000s education policy increased eligibility for loan programs, raised borrowing limits, which drove a surge in new institutions especially for-profit ones.” The close examination looks at what happened when a change in policy altered the way student loans worked and in this case, a change in the policy skyrocketed the students able to take out loans and increased the amount a student could take out. While this did create new intuitions it also created a problem within the student debt. “Peaks in student loan defaults are driven by federal policy” is the conclusion that Doris came to while looking at the past year’s loans chart. 

Ducoff furthers her argument by pointing out “90 percent of private loans have an adult co-signer” which means that not only did the number of loans taken out increase but so did the number of parents co-signing. The co-signing is a way to have a safety net for those establishments lending out loans for if the student cannot repay, the burden falls on the parents. This statistic shows that even before the loans have been taken out and the degree has been earned there is already some doubt that the student will be able to repay the loan. This pushes back on the idea that millennials are not working hard enough while in college as there is already a systematic problem before they even get into college. While these interesting points hint at the system being at fault Nick Gillespie shuts down these ideas by looking at where student loans go. “Student debt can be accumulated from all aspects” meaning that it’s not just tuition that students use loans for certain aspects of college like housing, food, transportation, and entertainment play a huge role in the accumulation of debt. He continues to point out that millennials should be responsible for knowing how much money they need. Continuing to say that millennials lack of budgeting is the problem with how much debt they accumulate, while this point valid Ducoff argues that budgeting gets thrown out the window as students need as much many as they can get in order to live a healthy college life. 

Ducoff continues to challenge Gillespie pointing out that budgeting a loan is not a simple thing every student can do as some students need to borrow more money than others. “Black millennials borrowed 17 percentage points higher than their white peers” this statistic shows another problem connected to the government which is the racial wealth gap. The more a student’s family is struggling the more loans that that student is going to take out and possibly get a job while in school. As stated earlier the dismal rate Whistle brought up can be challenged with a poorer student not being able to keep up while working during their college careers. 

Several points have been brought up while examining these articles from millennials creating problems in student debt to the government itself bringing the college debt crisis on itself. While these four articles create the debate of who is to blame both sides bring up rather simple solutions for what they believe is the problem. On the side of Gillespie and Whistle, they argue that responsibility needs to be taken when millennials take out these loans while holding them accountable. This side sees loans as an investment that will pay itself off in the future if done right. On the side of Ducoff and Doris, they argue that the government must change some policies while also raising the amount of information that is put out to the public on the topic of student loans. Funding for information on student loans just as much as the government funds for teen drinking awareness. While both arguments had some valid points it all comes down to the students who are wanting to further their education who must make these tough decisions regarding student loans. 

Works Cited

Doris, Aine. “Government Policy Has Created a $1.5 Trillion Student-Loan Crisis.” Chicago Booth Review, review.chicagobooth.edu/finance/2020/article/government-policy-has-created-15-trillion-student-loan-crisis. 

Nick Ducoff, CEO and founder of Edmit. “Students and Their Families Need Support Systems before They’re Saddled with College Debt.” CNBC, CNBC, 17 May 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/students-families-need-support-systems-to-handle-college-debt-crisis.html. 

Gillespie, Nick. “Are Millennials Responsible for Their Own Student Debt?” Reason.com, Reason, 21 May 2019, reason.com/2019/05/21/are-millennials-responsible-for-their-own-student-debt/. 

Whistle, Wesley. “The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap.” New America, www.newamerica.org/millennials/reports/emerging-millennial-wealth-gap/. 

On a typical weekday the average young adult follows the same story: They wake up, turn off the alarm on their phone and begin the day by scrolling through social media. They are looking for everything they missed in the eight hours that they were asleep. As they continue their day they will periodically look for time to check social media, and if they actually do something exciting it is imperative they take pictures to share with followers later. They will then edit the photos and plan the perfect time to post; however, it does not end there. They will obsessively check the post and monitor it to make sure it has the appropriate amount of likes and comments. When they are ready for sleep again, they will end the night the same way they started it: By scrolling to see everyone else’s day. How did this become the new normal? Does this actually show what is going on in people’s lives? Does this make others miss out on life or enjoy it more because they can share it with others? The idea of social media and its influence has been debated between health professionals, parents, and different generations. Social media has many benefits and yet to some it is still dangerous how often people are on social networking sites. While it can seem like a surface problem, there are multiple viewpoints that do not create an easy answer.

Generation Z is known as the generation that grew up on technology. This is a group of young adults who grew up and learned to stay connected through social media. Being the generation to grow up on technology, Gen. Z strives for accessibility and ways to complete tasks while being fast and efficient. Social media is an easy way to connect with people around the world. It allows for followers to see hobbies and accomplishments of specific users. Furthermore, it can connect individuals from different backgrounds or cultures.

The picture above shows how people around the world can connect through the media. Individuals are able to share stories and pictures with others who live far away and even those living down the street. With all of this communication through technology, it is easy to see why social media has become a huge influence in users’ lives. With friends and family living in different parts of the state and across the country, social media allows friends and family to stay connected and check in while maintaining a relationship through technology. As we currently deal with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), social media is providing people with a way to stay connected and involved during a time of isolation. This is allowing individuals to use smartphones to see family through a screen. According to author Marina Koren, apps like facetime and zoom are helping families communicate during a time when in person communication needs to be limited. It is imperative to stay in touch with loved ones even when families can not be together. 

Similarly, social media also allows users to voice their opinions across different platforms. Recently, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has been sweeping social media. Whether on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, users of all ages have been making their voices heard and sharing information with the world. Users are calling for major social changes from the government and policies that were not there before. Social media has given people who have not had the ability to be heard the platform to do so while sharing their story. Back in June there was a day called “Blackout Tuesday” which happened nationwide to demonstrate against police brutality where for a 24 hour period, any social media users restricted posting any content that was not a black screen with links to raise awareness for BLM. The New York Post article analyzes the impact of the BLM movement and how Blackout Tuesday has connected communities. This was a protest which took place over social media and created a space for ideas. When the social equality movement was first started in the 1960s there was not a place where opinions could be voiced and shared as easily as the BLM movement is doing now. Technology has opened the door and made voicing opinions available to individuals and their followers even if they can not go out and protest for this change. It allows for people to get involved and gives them information to help. Overall, it is a place for support and calling others to action showing no one is alone.

With all the positives it can be hard to see the negatives of social media; however, some argue social media has blocked real communication, and people do not know how to communicate face to face in society anymore. With technology at our fingertips, users find it easier to start a conversation or relationship, but it turns into words without any emotions. This is harming the younger generations because it leads to the inability to separate face to face communication and communication through phones. This video entitled I Forgot My Phone shows a woman who spends a day without her phone. As she goes through her day she realizes the people around her are more focused on their phones or taking pictures for posting purposes than actually enjoying the company around them. This lack of communication is harming young adults because there is no connection, empathy, or authenticity. Rather, it is a couple of sentences or pictures back and forth with no context. When individuals have a face to face conversation it allows for a connection and for others to see one’s true self. But when talking through direct messaging and posts, it is easy to put on a fake persona in order to get others to perceive them in a perfect way. Instead of letting a conversation flow the way it is supposed to, young adults tend to rethink and retype every response so they can try to get the “best” outcome.

Furthermore, young adults browse through social media to see what everyone is doing with their life, and they browse with a purpose: They want to know if what they posted was better. People strive to have the best story, the most perfect picture, or even the funniest joke. This creates a false reality, and leads young adults to believe the perfect lives of their friends. This also creates the fear of missing out (FOMO). This anxiety can lead to the feeling of needing to take a picture whenever they go out or even making them feel as though they need to do things so they can seem more involved in the “perfect” lives around them. This can cause multiple problems and will lead the younger generations to think their life is inadequate to those who show a “perfect” life. Actually having a perfect life is rare and in most cases individuals will actually miss opportunities to show off the best aspects of their life. When going to a concert all that can be seen are phone screens recording rather than the audience actually enjoying the artist. The videos will spam social media with terrible quality and blurry images, yet a person can show that they were indeed there. All they care about is the picture. Sherry Turkle shows how close this problem is when she explains that social media allows, “us to present ourselves as we want to be. This means we get to edit, and we get to delete.” Turkle points out how this can create a harmful mindset that likes or comments should dictate someone’s life. She points out how this is incorrect because social media holds impossible standards and she warns how people should enjoy life for themselves rather than taking pictures and likes. Users have the ability to edit out flaws and delete the posts that do not get the desired results. By always trying to be the best it can lead to people missing people and missing moments that they would have enjoyed otherwise. 

All in all, social media has many benefits; however, there are also some setbacks. The importance of social media is that it is a marketplace of ideas for a younger generation to stay in touch, post about life, and bring sweeping changes to a present society. Generation Z is a generation that grew up with technology and it surrounds their daily lives. But although it can seem like it brings good to the world there are also setbacks. These include the fact that it creates a false reality which young adults feel as though they need to achieve. However these standards are impossible which can leave young adults feeling left out and alone. They no longer can communicate face to face and they are just waiting for a notification to come through. Technology is now a part of the new normal. Tomorrow generations of users will turn off their alarms and begin the daily process of scrolling, liking, commenting, and sharing to ensure they miss out on nothing from the prior day and attempt to start the long battle of making positive impactful changes for generations to come. 

Works Cited 

Charstarlene, director. I Forgot My Phone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OINa46HeWg8&t=23s.

Degelman, Channing. “WordPress Image.” 

https://cdegelman.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/bd9bd-0zn5loabnoakib_vc.jpg?w=509&h

=285. 10 November 2020. 

Koren, Marina. “Social Distancing Could Change Our Relationship With FaceTime.” The 

Atlantic, The Atlantic, 14 March 2020, 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/social-distancing-coronavirus-video

chat-facetime/608038/. 

Manskar, Noah. “What Is ‘Blackout Tuesday’? Trend Floods Social Media amid George Floyd 

Protests.” New York Post, New York Post, 2 June 2020, 

nypost.com/2020/06/02/what-is-blackout-tuesday-everything-to-know-about-the-movem

ent/. 

Turkle, Sherry, director. Connected, but Alone. TED Talk, youtu.be/t7Xr3AsBEK4. 

I would like for you to take a moment and think about a woman you know. It could be your mother, your sister, a friend, significant other, or maybe even yourself. Think about the different hardships they endure, the obstacles they have overcome, and the adversity they may face in their everyday lives. Now, ask yourself, should having access to basic menstrual products be included in those difficulties? 

On any given day, 62.5% of women worldwide do not have access to proper menstrual care.

Over the past decade or so, the issue of menstrual equity has been brought in to light and fiercely debated. Should women have access to free period products and menstrual care? More important than the question itself, is the question of why is this a debate in the first place? By forcing men and women alike to ask this question, true values held by the government, healthcare, and frankly humanity in regard to women are revealed. Many sides of this issue are concerned about a variety of topics including women’s overall health, access to low-income women in particular, and the education of adolescent girls. Many are also concerned with who will pay for this and how? Will women take advantage of these free products? These are all valid concerns that contribute to the conversation of menstrual equity.

---

By: Fiona Fitzsimons

I’m sure everyone has seen the trending tag “#metoo”. This tag has so much more meaning to it other than just being a meaningless hashtag on someone’s post. In 2018, thousands of women participated in the “me too” movement. This movement was calling out powerful men for sexual harassment and sexual assault, once one brave women took the stance against a man, they were not alone. After one woman would call out a certain powerful man, many other females shared the same experience with that same man. Not only did this movement call attention to sexual harassment in workplaces, this movement has made so many positive changes for females. Many have heard of the uplifting story’s of the me too movement but few have heard of any negatives. The media focuses on all the positives of this movement which tend to block out the negatives of the “me too” movement. 

In the past women have chosen to stay silent when a boundary was crossed by a male, especially when it was someone they worked with. It wasn’t worth losing their job, they thought. They thought it was their own fault and started to believe that they were in fact the guilty one. This was the problem the me too movement solved. Thousands of women stood up for themselves and called out these horrible men around the world. Times magazine gave their well known person of the year award in 2017 to “The silence breakers”. The “silence breakers” were those women participating in the me too movement who broke their silence. Times highlights these brave women on speaking out on their experiences. Many explained that they were threatened by their attacker to not tell anyone, some stating they would even go after the victims’ kids, if they were to speak up. This article focuses on how speaking out wasn’t the hard part, many victims explain in this article that they would experience assault from their attacker multiple times and how their attack held such an emotional and physical burden, many experienced some form of PTSD. Thousands of women across the nation came together and discovered they were not alone. All experienced such gruesome harassment and the aftermath of it left them feeling alone and depressed.  This award from Times, gives light to these brave women who participated in the me too movement, and how future generations of women will be affected in such a powerful way. This article ensures that sexual harassment in the workplace will be reduced, and those who experience it will receive justice for their assaults.

Although this movement started up in the United States, it quickly spread across the seas, creating a global movement. Multiple countries have experienced a movement similar to the one seen in America. America was very lucky to have such a positive and quick response to the me too movement. Sadly, countries like India limit justice for females. When indian women took the stance amongst their attackers, they were shut down and told there’s no evidence. As explained in the Washington Post, women quickly became discouraged in India. Although these attackers did not receive a just punishment, the women accusing them felt some sort of satisfaction calling out their attackers. In some way drawing negative attention to powerful men, even the minister of India. The article expands on how Japan had a similar experience with the me too movement. Victims were calling out their male perpetrators and were being shut down, It was easy for them to become discouraged as well. Luckily they weren’t, these women demanded justice and created a movement similar to the me too movement, called “flower demonstrations’ , this movement was calling out powerful men for sexual harassment. This was proof that Japan’s society was slowly but surely making a positive movement for females across Japan. 

This movement gave relief to so many suffering victims. For example, As stated in USA Today, Miriam Mayer experienced heartbreaking sexual assault attack at the start of her hollywood career from a male composer, she states “I really wanted/needed that job, it was a great opportunity, but I couldn’t go back. There was no one to report to”. Miriam like many other women valued her career, and had to give up on it due to sexual assault. She thanks the me too movement as now women who experience what she did will now have an opportunity to report and speak up, and hopefully not have to give up their career, like herself. Many victims felt like themselves again and found relief in knowing their attackers were getting punished for their disgraceful actions. Females across the nation stood up together for tramus they have experienced and finally received justice for. Now, the nations younger generations were even being taught about sexual harassment, and how wrongful it is. Girls are now taught how to protect themselves and deal with harassment, while boys are taught to not conduct such an evil attack. How could such a powerful movement even be at question for hurting women?

Sadly, with everything comes backlash. After this moment, many men found fear in working with women. Mens news feeds were filled up with successful, powerful men being thrown behind bars. Although women benefited from calling out their attackers, they have received consequences in their workplaces due to this movement. Men have become so overly conscious when working with women, that they would rather be working with men. Recent studies done by the Human Resource Executive showed that  22% of men and 44% of women agreed that females were being excluded from social interaction due to the fear of men being accused. This is extremely harmful to women’s careers. When competing with males at jobs, they are presented with less opportunities due to the fact that they are female. Sadly, nearly one third of men claim they stay away from holding one on one meetings with women, out of fear of being falsely accused according to Human Resource Executive. Once again this is a major setback to women who are constantly competing with males. After a poll conducted in 2019 by Human Resource Exec, it found 19% of men stay away from hiring women they find attractive, as they see that as a liability to their office. Unfortunately, as women gain more respect in workplaces and receive justice for their tragic attacks, they recieve setbacks in their careers for simply being a female. This makes one question the risk versus the reward in this situation. If one were to value their career and receive a massive loss of opportunity due to them being seen as a “liability” in a work place, one would not be too fond of the me too movement.

Much more evidence was found to support the backlash of the me too movement, as time went on. Harvard Business review explains the “Mike Pence Rule”. This so called “rule” being that a man would not eat dinner one on one with another woman not being their wife. Obviously this is very threatening to women, if every man were to follow this “rule” women would be passed up in so many opportunities, big and small. The bigger problem about this “rule”, is that this is a leader of our country stating that.  When a country’s leader is saying things that will negatively affect females, it really makes one think if women have made progression through the me too movement. Tim Bower, the author of this article explains that when networks as big as the New York Times were posting articles on how positive and powerful this movement is, he didn’t believe it. He knew from the start this movement would hold many consequences for women. Stepping forward in aspects of harassment yet stepping backwards in the form of females careers, as Bower explained. Bower touches on how in recent feminist movements, women have come far in the sense of workplace gender equality, yet this me too movement serves as a huge step backwards. Unfortunately, he forecasted the truth. 

This question being asked if the me too movement is helping or hurting women, really depends on one’s values. If one were to value their career and how hard they have worked, just to have missed opportunities of promotion due to their gender. This movement would obviously be hurting them. They would not be benefiting from this powerful movement in the long run. Whereas, If a woman was constantly being harassed in her work place, and was suffering, she would  graciously benefit from this. She would finally be free of her attacker and could find peace in that. Everything comes with backlash. Even some of the most positive powerful movements like this me too movement come with backlash. 

Writing this paper I honestly felt disappointed in myself. I thought it was wrong to even question the me too movement. As it was such an uplifting movement to so many women suffering around the world. I was ashamed by the backlash I researched about, It was my first time hearing of it. How could such a powerful movement like this wound up hurting women at the same time of helping them. I really think the question being asked has an answer depending on one’s values and background. I guess it’s really asking if women are benefiting or falling back more due to this movement.

The concept of assisted suicide has been a relatively polarizing subject in society. The oath doctors take to always try to save their patients’ life as medical professionals is really the key part of this debate, as they are obliged to save lives like they so often do, but they are also required to respect the wishes of their patient and allow them to be in control of their own life. The debate around Euthanasia has changed overtime as society has seen its values and individual freedoms evolve with the times.

The supporting side of assisted suicide has a very outspoken ally in Len Doyal, a St Bartholomew′s and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London professor. His essay “Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legalised” starts out with an intriguing anecdote about a woman named Diane Pretty who suffers from “motor neurone disease and is experiencing the disintegration of her body”. Mrs Pretty’s husband was denied the legal right to give doctors permission to pull the plug on the machines that are keeping her alive. Mrs Pretty is actively suffering from her disease every day and is only being kept alive by the work of doctors who are able to keep her body functioning, but not able to fully take the pain away from her. If her doctors believed that she could no longer function as a human being given her situation, Doyal says, “If her doctors believed that medical treatment could provide no benefit because of her inability ever to engage in any self directed activity, then legally they could withdraw life sustaining treatments, including hydration and nutrition.” This idea of assisted suicide has different perspectives throughout the world, as different cultures value life and the struggles of life differently.

As depicted in the graph above, there are currently 9 states in America and Washington D.C. which have legal Physician-Assisted suicide. There are many different avenues in which people argue against Euthanasia in today’s society. BBC.co.uk lays out four separate categories in which the idea of assisted suicide’s naysayers choose to argue. The ethical, practical, historical, and religious values of society are the ones called into question in this BBC article. The ethical avenue revolves around the idea that Euthanasia weakens society’s sanctity of life and eats away at the value of life in general, which could have unforeseen consequences in the future. A component of the practical argument is that Physician-Assisted suicide gives doctors too much power as it allows them to play “god” in certain situations and to not always be obligated to save human lives. The historical argument closely weaves into the ethical argument, as it is argues that legalizing this medical practice could send humanity on a “slippery slope” and if we allow doctors to legally kill people, then whats next in terms of how legal it is to take a human life. Finally, the religious component of the argument comes into play. This stance says that Euthanasia is against the will of god and, as illustrated in the ethical argument, decreases the human notion that life is special and should be fully enjoyed because we are so lucky to have it. This article relies heavily on logos and ethos, the credibility and sources of their facts. This is effective in certain ways but also lacks any pathos which is an integral part of each side of this topic. The different approaches that this article takes to the issue shows how polarizing it can be and also lays out the many different layers to the conversation, as the value of human life begins to be called into question.

Venturing into this dense topic of Euthanasia, it is usually a. topic discussing the legal aspects of the issue and relating that to the ethical and moral values of the people involved. As is the case for many issues, when they are properly researched and engaged with, there are more than just two binary sides to this issue. As assisted suicide plays out in the real world and fundamentally affects real lives, Cecilia Rodriguez, a senior contributor at Forbes, gives us an eye-opening insight into a new dimension of Euthanasia that she calls “Euthanasia Tourism” in her essay titled, “Euthanasia Tourism: Is The E.U. Encouraging Its Growth?”. Rodriguez defines her new word early in her essay to provide her readers with a solid foundation as she introduces this new topic to the question of assisted suicide, “The most general definition of the phenomenon: When a person travels to a country offering euthanasia or assisted suicide as a legal option because the act is forbidden or more restrictive in his or her home country.” Two recent defeats in the state legislatures of New Mexico and Arkansas, to enable doctors to prescribe life-terminating drugs to a patient who seeks to end their suffering by physician assisted suicide, have brought national media attention to this question of Euthanasia Tourism. She seems to reveal a little bias in her writing when she paints out the religious side of the issue in a relatively senseless light, “in the words of the Christian Post, ‘to enable ‘suicide tourism,””. She purposely uses the words “suicide tourism” to try and show, what she believes, is a shallow point of view that is shared by religious opposers to Euthanasia. The tone of this example she uses exposes the slightest amount of bias, although I believe it was intentional to almost subconsciously begin to develop this sense in the reader of sources like the “Christian Post” to possess shallow and unintelligent opinions on the subject. The words “suicide tourism” without any other context illustrate a very negative connotation as if assisted suicide is the exact same as regular suicide, which has been cast in such a poor light in modern society. The remainder of this essay seems to remain somewhat neutral as she mostly provides facts about travel rates and where Euthanasia is legal, this article is effective in its attempt to introduce an entirely new aspect of the issue and it important to note when laying out the full scope of the Euthanasia topic.

Assessing the strong and passionate sides of any argument is crucial when entering into such a polarizing subject like Physician Assisted Suicide. In a Vox article labeled, “Current laws permitting assisted suicide are morally indefensible”, written by Felicia Nimue Ackerman, the title alone shows the entire view of the author and which way the article will be skewed. As many passionate pieces do, this one begins with an anecdote that seeks to appeal to the emotion in a reader or the Pathos of the argument. Beginning this article with the story of an 84 year old who is suffering from the painful battle of terminal cancer is very effective in appealing to that emotional side of the reader and almost opening them up to become passionate and angry about the topic when at the end of that story, the sweet old grandma is denied her choice to die peacefully. Ackerman’s article depicts how she believes that Euthanasia should be a right given to everyone, not just the terminally ill. She cites the fact that, “The terminally ill are not the only people who may have strong and stable suicidal desires grounded in conditions that are unlikely to change,” which begins to enter the conversation of depression and mental health. Ackerman argues to the reader that Euthanasia is looked at too narrowly currently and her claim is that it should either be legal to everyone or illegal to everyone. Ackerman is an extremely progressive voice in this conversation and she demonstrates that throughout her piece. Reading this essay you can feel the passion in the writing and how strongly she cares about the subject and even when acknowledging the bias in the piece, the passion she has is quite moving and perfectly displays the aims and intentions of one side of this subject.

An article from The Atlantic titled “Whose Right to Die?” gives the other side to the issue when the author, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, begins his essay with the statement, “America should think again before pressing ahead with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia,”. This essay lays out both sides of the argument to begin and that proves very effective when he circles around to his stance again at the end of the essay. Exposing myths around suicide throughout his piece like this one which he calls “Myth No. 4”, “The experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands shows that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not eventually get out of hand,”. Emanuel fears the exact same slippery slope that is advocated for by Ackerman. He shares an opposite viewpoint and his tone throughout the piece is much more calm and calculated than that of Ackerman’s. This effectiveness in his writing style almost calms the reader down and brings them back into a moderate stance on this issue if read right after Ackerman’s article. Emanuel points out ,”not all cases are the same, and among the millions of Americans who die each year there are morally relevant differences that cannot be captured in an inflexible rule,” which in some ways agrees with Ackerman’s point that society views this issue too simply and there is much more to the topic than what is discussed. He acknowledges that difference as well but he shows the slippery slope that he fears could follow and when painted in the picture he describes, it proves as an effective way to present the issue from a naysayers point of view.

It is fascinating to watch how each side attempts to get their point across and the different techniques used in their writing styles and word choice. Each technique has its different way in being persuasive and moving, it is the beauty of Rhetoric in which you can make your point in any way that you believe will be most effective. The topic of Euthanasia is a subject that I believe will be debated about for a long time and it will not go gently into that good night but will rage against the dying of the light, as Dylan Thomas so eloquently put.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Felicia Nimue. “Current Laws Permitting Assisted Suicide Are Morally Indefensible.” Vox, Vox, 21 Nov. 2016, http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/21/13693016/assisted-suicide-referendums-philosophy.

“Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night by Dylan Thomas – Poems | Academy of American Poets.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night.

Doyal, L, and L Doyal. “Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalised.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), BMJ, 10 Nov. 2001, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J. “Whose Right to Die?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Mar. 1997, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/whose-right-to-die/304641/.

“Ethics – Euthanasia: Anti-Euthanasia Arguments.” BBC, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml.

Rodriguez, Cecilia. “Euthanasia Tourism: Is The E.U. Encouraging Its Growth?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Mar. 2019, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2019/03/17/euthanasia-tourism-is-the-e-u-encouraging-its-growth/?sh=4f2972b7229b.

For hundreds of years as technology has developed, the media and the news have snuck their way into professional sports culture to report the actions of athletes on the field, but more importantly, the actions of these individuals off the field. In many cases being an athlete and a celebrity come hand in hand, but they are still real people with their own opinions and political beliefs. This brings up the controversial topic of athletes involving political opinions in their workplace.

Generally speaking, many fans and players prefer to use sports to disconnect from the real world and take a breather from the stressors of life outside the game. However, in more recent times the drama of politics has consumed a big part of professional sports and many ask if that is really necessary. News channels such as FOX, call out ESPN for being the biggest culprit of distracting the sport culture with politics. Due to the division families and teams, some former NFL players and sports analysts such as Jason Whitlock believe that anything unrelated to the game should be dealt with in the locker room and “outsiders should not be blamed.”

On air the Fox News reporter states, “The politicalization of sports … an epidemic thats been flooding Americas favorite past times.” To the audience the use of tone shows the solemnity of losing the past time aspect of sports. The action of watching sports and coming together as friends and families has drastically changed in the recent years. These people that came together are now being divided because of their political opinions that are addressed during these events. Another major argument that Fox introduces is that people do not turn on the television at the end of the day to be told what to do and how to act. When all people want to do is watch sports, it is not beneficial to be shoving political views into the faces of these viewers.

Jason Whitlock makes another good point in his interview and says that ESPN came out and basically explained that if an individual disagrees with some of these protests then they are considered a racist. He explains that this is completely wrong and may persuade people that do not agree to stop watching ESPN or sports in general. Absolutely no one wants to go on and have their opinions disregarded and be called a racist.

However, on the contrary many individuals do not only believe that political affiliation with sports is appropriate, but many think it is necessary to use the viewership to prove certain points to the audience in times of current political crisis. The whole year of 2020 has brought some very extreme political topics to the table which may severely effect how sports are played. Whether it is Covid-19, police brutality, or kneeling during the national anthem, it is safe to say the world is changing drastically which puts companies such as ESPN in a weird position with their former “stick to sports” mantra.

ESPN has always been the leading company for sports coverage and it is the first thing that comes to mind for the topic; however, they have recently received a substantial amount of backlash for changing the morals of their company. All throughout the existence of ESPN they have wanted to create a community of sports watching that helps the audience detach from the outside world. As shown in the article above, multiple years ago the company even stood against the tweets of an employee because they were politically abusing President Trump. To prevent potential backlash and to support their company morals they condemned this social media post. In this same time frame ESPN came out with a poll asking the audience their opinion on the the topic. Nearly all the votes were in favor of not covering politics and from that day forward the company launched their “stick to sports” agenda.

The reason this idea of politics in sports becomes so controversial is because of the increasing amount of “bad news” in current times. So much crime gets swept under the rug and this NBA season in the bubble players showed particular anger in this lack of coverage. After the police killing of George Floyd the NBA came up with the idea of putting phrases and names of victims on the upper back of the players jerseys that could be customized by each athlete. This idea was initially to promote the awareness of police brutality, but soon turned into the fight against any type of inequality. However, as the fight against police continued the players began to further revolt which eventually led to boycotting playoff games and exiting the court before tip-offs. Some fans were against this action saying it was not the right thing to do, but the players felt like it was the only way to gain attention and publicity. Most fans however supported this because they too want equality just like many Americans. Turning back on the “stick to sports” slogan from years previous seemed like the only option for ESPN and that is exactly what they did. To this day ESPN said it will cover any political event as long as it involves sports, as the two are intertwined.

This photo is a powerful image that was circulated around the internet to spread awareness and to inform people of the current times. This image is very symbolic and meant to use pathos to strike emotions into the reader. The picture shows multiple NBA players kneeling, wearing “Black Lives Matter” t-shirts with their head pointed down to the floor to strengthen the impact of their main point. In this particular image the only person with their head not pointed downward is one of the two black men in this picture. This may be a coincidence but it also makes a strong point to the reader either saying we all have to battle this as a country and citizens should not disrespect each other, or that it is important to stay strong and do not put your head down in times of hardship. Overall, the photographer of the photo does a brilliant job at using rhetorical skills to strike pathos into the audience.

Many American citizens take the patriotism very seriously and veterans fall deeply into that group of Americans. Many people kneel during the national anthem to protest against the flag and the United States as a whole. Some athletes protest the anthem to call attention to issues of racial inequality and police brutality, while others kneel because players like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf believe the flag is a symbol of “oppression and racism.” The idea of kneeling during the national anthem is one of the most controversial sub-topics in the politics vs. sports argument. This is because there are people who put their life on the line for the country and feel strongly about ideals of the flag that people disrespect on national television. This tends to cause veterans to speak out and share their opinion about how certain athletes make them feel.

About four years ago, Colin Kaepernick was all over the news because of his idea of kneeling during the national anthem. Initially, many people seemed to be against Kaepernick saying that he took the lighthearted characteristics out of the game. He seemingly ruined his career and ended up being unsigned because he was “bigger than the game” and teams did not want additional locker room distractions. It was not until recently that many athletes followed his lead and began taking the initiative to further pursue the practice of kneeling.

This political cartoon, like many others, have pieces that symbolize more than what meets the eye. This being said, the information given through the cartoon can be argued for both sides of this controversy. It is shown that Colin Kaepernick is able to gain the attention of other celebrities such as Lebron James and President Trump. This supports the idea that politics should be involved in sports because it is able to start a conversation that may not have been brought to the attention of people such as Trump and James. However, this cartoon also implements a bag of money that Kaepernick is kneeling next to. This supports the opposite side saying that politics should not be involved in sports because it takes away from the game and causes players to become distracted by potential profit that make come from speaking out or involving politics in the way they play the game. This is a perfect political cartoon because it is able to support both sides of the argument and use rhetoric in an unbiased fashion.

Although many believe that kneeling is disrespectful to Americans, especially veterans, people are willing to listen. Veterans and people that fight for our country are so important and prevalent in this argument because they live, fight, and die for the flag of the United States. As a result, when these athletes make their sport political and kneel during the National Anthem the opinions of these veterans may easily change about the particular athlete or the country overall. For example, army veteran Rocio Serna did not necessarily agree or understand with what Kaepernick was doing, but she still gave her attention without taking complete offense. Instead of fighting against Kaepernick, Serna seemingly agreed with his ideas but not so much with his actions. She describes how it is beneficial for celebrities to bring the elephant into the room because then people are more willing to talk about it.

However, not all veterans feel as positively about these outbursts by Kaepernick and the NFL. Green Beret veteran Michael Rodriguez agreed that Colin was completely in his rights, but he believes that the flag represents liberty to all the citizens instead of this idea of police brutality that these players are protesting. Rodriguez wants it known that the flag is supposed to symbolize everyone who has fought for any type of right that we have as a country. He goes as far to say that Americans do not know what oppression truly is and that we as a country are in a bubble and live a sheltered life compared to other countries.

“What if we had 100,000 Muhammed Ali’s?” -Tom Wicker (NewYork Times)

While many of these political controversies are relatively current, when the media first became involved with boxing star boxer Muhammed Ali he almost ruined his career due to sharing his beliefs through the media. Young or old, these athletes are still humans with cultural, religious and other beliefs. Muhammed Ali marks a great beginning of politics in sports with not only being involved with fighting against racism, but also anti-war efforts due to his religious beliefs. Not many people in this time period were able to stand up and use their fame to address controversial political topics. In this video it clearly shows the consequences that Ali faced such as three years in jail for dodging the draft due to his beliefs.

Finally, the fanbase of the NBA might be starting to show their opinions on the whole situation with politics and sports. There have been many claims by fans that the NBA has simply become “too political.” As shown in the article by Forbes even President Trump tweets that people are tired of watching the “too political” NBA. Thirty-eight percent of the randomly selected 2,000 people claimed that they watch less basketball because it has become too political. This is hurting the profits of the NBA and has contributed to one of the least profitable seasons in decades. These statistics of NBA profits are more than just numbers to the sport as a whole. This poll was created to settle the argument of politics in sports by getting the opinions of the public. The NBA seems to want to make this conversation about the sports community rather than the advocacy of political discrepancies that take over American news everyday. They used this topic to show their audience that the league cares about them and all of the viewers of the NBA.

In conclusion, as media and sports have developed, political conversations have become increasingly affiliated with sports and the athletes. Since sports are so popular, these athletes are idolized by many people around the world and this causes the analysis of every move an athlete makes. While their main job is to perform at maximum potential, athletes still have political views and opinions that sometimes interfere with the sport. This raises the controversy whether politics should be involved in sports or if fines should be given out for those that want to spread their beliefs.

          Almost everyone has visited a zoo at one point in their life. They’ve always been great places to spend a day and admire some of the animals that we would’ve never been able to see before. However, there is far more debate about zoos that show some of the darker aspects of a place that would seem so happy. Is it worth it to have zoos still? At what point is containing a wild animal cruelty? Is it worth it for the general public to see animals in person for them to be removed from their native habitats? Do animals have rights? All of these questions have sparked debate between clashing groups. 

          In an article “Why Zoos Are Good” by Dr. Dave Hone, he examines some valid reasons for why zoos should be continued. Starting off with his clear stance he states that he has worked at a zoo and is very much in favor of them. This already provides some ethos since he would have had first hand experience with how zoos work. Their value according to him has to do with conservation efforts. What is becoming increasingly known to us is that humans are causing the extinction rates of animals to soar at a rate only common in mass extinctions. He argues that zoos are so important because they can be used to breed endangered animals to be released back into the wild in a conservation effort. He clearly puts value in the conservation of animals over the ability for them to be free. He believes that only through people being able to see the animals will they be inspired to do anything for conservation. In part this puts value in people seeing the animals even though it takes away the animals ability to have any privacy. This argument ultimately relies on the logic that conservation and education are the most essential parts to helping animals. 

          He brings up a second argument that has a far more emotional appeal. He explains that many animals in zoos are able to live lives where they are safe, with lots of food, “and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive”. While his other argument uses strong logos this one uses lots of pathos. This makes his view much stronger as he incorporates both ideas. It’s very true that many of us don’t want to imagine the harsh reality of nature when we see cute penguins at a zoo. The idea of any of them being eaten as another part of the food chain sounds extremely disheartening. This puts a clear value that an animal having a peaceful life outweighs it being in captivity it’s entire life. He explains at the beginning that he really is only a fan of “good” zoos and that of course some enclosures will be too small but many will be good. This is his way of bringing up the counter argument that animals in captivity don’t get to wander freely and therefore live a worse life. By bringing up the counter argument he was able to strengthen his own ideas of how important zoos are.

          An opposing stance is written in a second article “Do We Need Zoos” by J. Westen Phippen who brings out a counter argument that shows the different sides of how zoos are actually harmful to animals. He brings up strong points on how zoos do not do enough conservation to make up for the treatment of animals in enclosures, and what effects these contained lives can have on animals.

          He starts off with a story most people have become familiar with. He talks about the zoo where Harambe the gorilla was killed after a child fell into his pen and was dragged around. He immediately opens up with this story because it’s a classic, strong example of what happens when things go wrong in a zoo. This emphasizes that these are wild animals and keeping them contained for public show isn’t safe. The argument now expands to what rights do the animals have. The orcas in SeaWorld have sparked so much controversy about animals not having enough room, but he wants us to look beyond this and see that all captive animals have this problem too. To add to the problem many animals end up with mental illnesses from captivity. These are all good points that even though animals may be safer in zoos they aren’t living a life that they’re supposed to. He wants us to see animals as having basic rights and makes it clear through discussing their health over the importance of their conservation. 

          A second argument comes up that contradicts the last article. It states that the excuse for zoos has often been that they’re important to conservation. However he points out that, “of all the animals at the 228 zoos it accredits, only 30 species are being worked with for recovery.” If zoos aren’t primarily about conservation then their main goal shifts from what the first article implies. It moves to just being about making money and providing entertainment. He wants us to see that zoos aren’t as essential to conservation as they want to seem. He believes zoos don’t do enough for animals and instead put all their priorities in the people visiting the park. He views this as morally wrong because it hurts the animals to be in captivity and is not worth it for people to have some entertainment.

          Another piece that has contributed to the argument is the video “Why Zoos Matter” by the Metro Richmond Zoo. This video is primarily focused on the importance of zoos because they improve the lives of animals in the zoo, and the zoo helps breed endangered animals. Their video plays into the common argument of conservation but also acts as a direct contrast to the idea that animals are unhappy in zoos through showing many bright and happy scenes of animals together as a family. 

          At the very beginning of the video it gains the interest of the audience by stating many facts about endangered animals including many of the reasons why it’s happening. They use harsh scenes of deforestation along with beautiful scenes of untouched landscapes. In doing these things they’ve made it very clear that this is about the environment and conservation more than anything. They want to take this away from being about people initially and make it solely about the animals. This already gives them a strong starting point because that is such a common reason for why zoos matter. Their video makes it clear that extinction is a terrible thing and through the images and text provided they are able to play into fear for the sake of these animals. This combination of facts and emotion makes the beginning of the video a strong hook and way of introducing their argument. 

     As the video continues the screen cuts to black and a recording plays of two zookeepers talking about a giraffe who’s about to give birth. We are then shown many scenes of animals giving birth and then nurturing their newborn babies. This is such a good transition because we go from learning that many animals are endangered to seeing some of these endangered animals having children. These births are used to bring hope to viewers knowing that these animals now have a stronger chance of making it because of this zoo. This is then followed up with many facts about their number of endangered animals and how many of some endangered animals were born in a span of so many years. This is mainly about how zoo conservation has helped so many species. They state that their zoo is making major efforts to combat extinction for the species they have in their zoo. Through the images they show they also have an underlying argument that these animals are happy there. The animals are never shown as sad and instead are always in bright lighting surrounded by their families or people. They never seem distressed to be around people and are painted to be living perfect lives. The zoo continues this idea by stating everything the animals have in the zoos such as food, shelter, and medicine. This gives off the strong impression that animals in zoos are living their best possible lives unlike what J. Westen Phippen stated in his article that animals often suffer from mental illnesses in zoos. Bringing up this argument enables the zoo to paint a picture of how perfect zoos are.

          A final argument is made in the article “Zoos Are Outdated and Cruel – It’s Time to Make Them a Thing of the Past” by Damian Aspinall. He makes his argument stating that zoos are invalid because the animals they keep will often be unable to ever return to the wild successfully, and because zoos are more for the enjoyment of people at the expense of animals.

          The beginning of the article focuses mostly on countering the main arguments about zoos such as the ones seen by Dr. Dave Hone. He gives multiple facts about how people do not actually learn that much in zoos and only about 1 in 100 people will become interested in conservation because of them. He argues that this is not enough to justify animals being held in captivity. By focusing on logos he is able to make the claim that his argument is solely based on facts and gives him far more credibility. He quickly follows this up with stating that zoo research hasn’t contributed nearly as much as they’d like people to believe. He argues that research can be done just as effectively if not better by observing animals in the wild or in conservation areas. If zoos fail to educate and research then their purposes diminish significantly. It also makes a strong statement to say that zoos are covering up how little they are able to learn from research. It diminishes their ethos and brings into question how much zoos lie about in order to remain open.

          He brings up another strong point against zoos saying they’re important to conservation efforts. Not only does he reiterate the argument made by J. Westen Phippen that zoos do not have enough endangered species to be justified but he also follows this up by stating that many of these endangered animals will never be able to integrate back into the wild. Due to the breeding processes and spread of disease among these animals they are unfit for the wild making the zoos “ark” of animals simply for the enjoyment of people. This is such a strong point because knowing that animals can’t be brought back to the wild ultimately ruins the purpose of breeding them in captivity because they won’t be able to help the endangered wild population. By implying that this is only for people it makes such an important point that zoos aren’t as good as they want to appear. He makes it clear that we shouldn’t be ruining the lives of animals for the sake of our own entertainment. He is able to make this argument clear through his strong use of logos but also includes moments of pathos especially in the use of a short clip depicting a baby elephant in a roadside zoo. It’s forced to perform before people and is taught to do so by hurting the animal. He uses this heartbreaking example because it makes the argument clear that this is not just about the zoos we see commonly but also so many zoos that abuse animals too. So many zoos mistreat animals and they do not get to live their natural lives. This means that animals lack the rights he thinks they deserve.

Works Cited

Aspinall, Damian. “Zoos Are Outdated and Cruel – It’s Time to Make Them a Thing of the Past.” 

The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Aug. 2019, 

www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/zoos-cruel-wildlife-conservation-species-a905

6701.html.

Hone, Dave. “Why Zoos Are Good.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Aug. 2014, 

www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good.

Phippen, J. Weston. “Do We Need Zoos?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3 June 2016, 

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/.

Philpott, William/Reuters. 30 May 2016. The Atlantic, Accessed 6 November 2020.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/harambe-the-perfect-meme/498743/

San Diego Zoo. 8 May 2019. KSNV: Las Vegas News, Accessed 6 November 2020.

https://news3lv.com/news/offbeat/two-cute-zoo-celebrates-birth-of-first-two-african-penguin-

chicks

“Why Zoos Matter.” YouTube, uploaded by Metro Richmond Zoo, 8 January

2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxlLaDSZwCU

For many years now, the debate if college athletes should get paid, has been ongoing. Many people think it’s not the best idea because these athletes are still students and that’s not fair to all the other students who aren’t athletes. However, some people think that it’s a good idea college athletes get paid because people feel as though the students are working two full-time jobs. Many articles bring insight to these ideas and how the debate started.

In a recent article posted in 2019 “NCAA Plans to Allow College Athletes to get Paid for Use of Their Names” explains how the NCAA started to consider paying college athletes. The NCAA wasn’t fond of the ideas of paying college athletes. However, once California had passed the bill that made it illegal for schools to ban students from getting compensation from advertisers. Soon, Illinois, Florida, New York, and other states decided to join this idea. The NCAA has now started to think about the idea of paying college athletes and giving some of them scholarships. Even though the NCAA isn’t giving all college athletes scholarships, their goal is to be fair to everyone.

After reading this article, it is clear that the author is bias in their writing. The author makes it clear that they think college athletes should get paid. This is made clear by not bringing up anything about how college athletes should not get paid and instead bringing up how they are starting to get paid. The author thinks it’s fair for college athletes to get paid and they are glad that the NCAA is changing their mind and starting to agree.

However, before the NCAA agreed to paying students, they had their disagreements. In the article written in August of this year, “Opinion: The Case for Paying College Athletes” it’s explained why the NCAA doesn’t want to pay athletes. The NCAA believes that it’s not reasonable for college athletes to get paid because they are still students. Even though this is true, these athletes have a very heavy workload with academics and school. Some athletes rack up 34 hours a week in practice plus academic semester hours of up to 18. This is more than a full-time job. A UCLA quarterback, Josh Rosen, feels as though with being a college football athlete and a full time student, he is working two full-time jobs. The NCAA only allows 20 hours of practice in a week. However, it seems as though this is not being monitored making it hard for college athletes to find time to have a normal college experience.

At the end of the article, the author makes his opinion clear. By stating that he thinks the NCAA needs to start doing their part, as in paying the athletes, he states his bias of thinking that college athletes need to be paid. A reader may at first think that he doesn’t think he wants college athletes to get paid because he states all the reasons why NCAA doesn’t think the students should get paid. However, as one continues to read the article, the author’s opinion becomes more clear.

As there is for every debate, there are pros and cons. In the article, “Should College Athletes Get Paid?” pros and cons are talked about. Some reasons as too why college athletes should get paid include that there is not implementing difficulty, college athletes risk permanent damage to their body, and lots of money is already a part of college sports. The reason why there is not implementing difficulty is because it’s already been discussed that the athletes that would/should get paid are the ones that bring in more revenue. These sports include college football and college basketball. Along with these sports bringing in the most revenue, these sports can also have a lot of career ending injuries that have the possibility to leave permanent damage. Money is also not a big concern because college football and basketball already bring in lots of money, leaving room for athletes to get paid from the profit that is made.

The cons that are included in the debate of paying college athletes are there is no difference in salaries and scholarships, financial awareness can become nonexistent, and responsibility is gone. If one were to compare the numbers of earning a salary and a scholarship for college athletes, there is only a few hundred dollar difference. This makes the salary aspect of paying athletes almost pointless. Also if given that much money, college athletes are more likely to become less financially aware. As well as being athletes, they are also college students. College students aren’t always financially aware with their money and by having a large amount this unawareness increases. Also by paying for the athletes’ college tuitions, they aren’t learning how to take care of their own expenses, they are just being handed the money.

This article isn’t the most clear as to which side the author is on. This article is more informational rather than opinionated. Even though there is no opinion to this article, in some cases it’s better for an article to be informational rather than bias. This is a way for readers to form their own opinion on the subject with the provided information rather than to get lectured about an author’s opinion on a subject.

In the YouTube video provided by CNN “Crossfire: Should college athletes be paid?” there are two ethical people debating. Kareem Abdul Jabbar believes that college athletes should be paid and Christine Brennan believes college athletes should not be paid. Christine Brennan believes that it wouldn’t be fair if only the highest paying salary sports got paid. For example, football and men’s basketball. Since the salaries made would only be benefitting the college football and college basketball players, people wonder about the other college sports. If college football and basketball players are being paid, so would softball, baseball, lacrosse players, and so on. This is a big reason as to why people don’t think college athletes should be paid, because it doesn’t account for all college athletes.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar is more worried about when the athletes get injured. It has been seen many times when a college athlete gets injured, gets their scholarship taken away, is then not able to play their sport anymore because of the injury and is left with not only academic bills to pay but also medical bills. Most of the time both of these bills range in the five digit numbers. This is a lot for one family to pay without any help. Kareem believes this is unfair to not only the athlete, but also the athlete’s family.

In the twelve minute YouTube video, Kareem doesn’t get much time to talk because Christine is making her point almost the whole time. This gives some insight on CNN’s point of view on the debate. By having Christine talk almost the whole time in the video, it seems clear that the opinion is college athletes shouldn’t get paid. Even though this seems that it’s more of an informational conversation and not meant to be an opinionated video, it seems to have come out biased.

Throughout reading these articles, it is clear that this debate has been going on for awhile now and isn’t going to stop and be resolved anytime soon. If athletes do end up getting paid, the other side will be upset. However, if athletes don’t get paid, many more people will be upset. The articles that were biased and believed that athletes should get paid made it very clear. The ones that didn’t make the opinion clear were the informational ones. The article that provided the pros and cons seems to truly be more informational opposed to the CNN video. The CNN video may have seemed informational at first, but looking further into the video, CNN is more bias towards college athletes not getting paid.

This rising debate has brought much information for people to form their own opinions. The main questions that are brought up when speaking about this topic are education or exploitation?, what are the benefits to athletes being paid?, and on the flip side, what are the consequences of athletes being paid? It seems as though there are more benefits, which is why the NCAA has started the process of paying college athletes through scholarships. People are entitled to their own opinions, however, their opinion isn’t always the right opinion.

What makes a topic controversial? Is it your political belief? Is it based on how many viewpoints there are? Does there always have to be a correct answer? These were some of the questions I asked myself when I was considering what topic to choose for my argument. Although the questions have no real answer, it was a good way for me to think about what topics would be considered good. After an extended period of stressful brainstorming, I finally concluded that the ideal controversial subject has to be one that is not so black and white. What makes a subject most controversial is that it needs to be a topic that, when supported with the right evidence, somebody could make a case either for or against it. The topic that I felt best fit this description was the argument on gun control. The gun control argument is one that is very difficult to moderate. There are people all over the spectrum in regards to whether or not people should own guns. On top of that, no matter what actions are taken to either promote or knock the ability to own guns, it seems that there is no real way to appease everyone. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion in the gun control argument, regardless of whether or not they are around them or really care about them. The argument at hand is very simple; should the government increase the number of laws regarding guns or not. According to New York Times, in recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, whether or not people should be allowed to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the people to own assault rifles. 

Pro Gun Control

In an article on Impact Fund, a website where progressive advocates stand up for economic, environmental, and social justice, writer Kelsey Rogers tells the tragic story of a high school basketball player whose career was greatly affected by gun violence. The boy she writes about in her story, Danny Williams, was a rising junior in high school from Buffalo, New York. While playing basketball outside of his house one day, his ball bounced into his neighbor’s yard. When he went to go pick it up, out of nowhere, a car drove up and a gun emerged from the driver’s side window. The shooter then fired a bullet into Danny’s abdomen. Although Danny survived the incident, his dreams of playing basketball at the next level did not. Where this story raises debate, is the fact that Danny’s shooter, a gang member who had mistaken him for somebody else, had purchased the weapon illegally through a gun trafficking ring at an Ohio gun show. This gun was only one of over 140 semi automatic handguns sold from this show. The ability to buy a gun with such ease is a substantial issue and it is one of the main arguments of why people believe gun control should increase. Had there been greater laws that better restricted the shooter’s ability to get a gun, Danny would still be playing basketball and achieving his greatest goals and aspirations. However, Danny is not the only person that has ever fallen victim to gun violence.

Gun violence has become a large issue in America in recent times and many believe that the only way this may be solved is through greater gun control. If people are stripped of their weapons, or if they are denied access to certain types of firearms, then gun related crimes would have no choice but to drop as people wouldn’t have access to the issue. An article in the Washington Post by Robert Gebelhoff lays out a number of steps that can be taken to end the war on guns. First, it is a necessity to ban weapons of war. Although banning assault rifles was never meant to reduce overall gun deaths, it was meant to reduce the number of deaths from mass shootings. Therefore, this ban would not exactly end gun violence, but it would keep more dangerous weapons from being used in crimes, which is a good place to start. Another step that the Gebelhoff offers in an attempt to lower gun related crimes, is to strengthen background checks. As of now, background checks are required by federal law, however, they’re not difficult to slip past. That is because the background checks are only required when purchasing through a licensed dealer. Private individuals and online retailers do not require these checks. This means that many gun owners, 42% of them in 2017, did not undergo any background checks before obtaining a firearm. Without greater gun control laws, convicted criminals and other individuals who should not receive access to these weapons, are still able to get one. It is obvious why this is an issue as these are the exact types of people who should be banned from having anything like this in the first place. The third step laid out by Gebelhoff is that the government needs to stop the flow of guns. As simple as it sounds, this would help as the more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be. A 2013 study from Boston University found that for every percent increase in gun ownership at the state level, there was a 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate. This means that for every additional gun owned by somebody in America, there was a firearm homicide to match it. Some ways that the country may go about decreasing the flow of guns could be; instituting a buyback program, limiting the number of guns that someone can buy at one time, and holding gun dealers more accountable of who they sell guns to. Instituting a buyback program has proven successful before in Australia. In the 1990s, Australia spent $500 million to buy back almost 600,000 guns. Harvard University researchers found that in the seven years following, the gun homicide rate dropped 42 percent and the gun suicide rate fell 58 percent. Limiting the number of guns that a single person can buy at once would be of big help too. Studies from what is now called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) show that as many as 1 in 5 handguns recovered in a crime were originally purchased as part of a sale in which multiple guns were purchased. If people were limited to one gun per month or so, then there would be less guns in circulation and people wouldn’t buy and sell guns illegally at such a fast rate. Finally, gun dealers should be more accountable of who they sell guns to. If a dealer sells a gun to somebody who they believe seems suspicious and a crime is committed with that gun, the dealer should have to serve some sort of punishment. This change would make dealers second guess everyone that they sell guns to, and sales would only be made if they were safe.

Anti Gun Control

As bad as some people want increased gun laws, there are still people on the other end of the spectrum who believe increased gun control laws are unnecessary. Furthermore, people challenge the idea of gun control in general. In an essay on Sage Journal, author Gary Kleck raises the question of whether or not gun levels should affect the rate of crime and violence. Gun control laws are intended to reduce crime and violence rates by keeping guns away from those who are more at risk of committing a crime using one. Although some laws attempt to do this by reducing gun levels in public, neither the federal government or any state has ever banned the ownership of guns. Further, research indicates that existing laws have no measurable effect on overall gun ownership levels in the population as a whole. Instead, gun laws are intended to stop trade, possession, and criminal use of guns by convicted criminals, mentally ill persons, alcoholics, or drug addicts. Because criminals, mentally ill persons, and alcoholics are already denied access to guns through background checks, increased gun laws would only keep those suitable to owning one from getting one. Some even argue that increased gun control laws could increase crime. By disarming possible future victims of violence, their ability to defend themselves reduces greatly, and any deterrent effect that the victims’ gun may have possessed towards the offender is gone. There is more to why guns can be looked at as good. News headlines are always filled with reports of gun violence and crime. While we hear about these murders and accidents all the time, what we often don’t hear about is the crimes stopped because of guns. People do not hear about times where would-be victims took a gun out and scared a criminal away. These failed crimes and saved lives usually aren’t reported to police, and when they are reported, the media tends to ignore them. This is because media producers have grown to realize what kind of news sells better than others.

In the End

In the end, the gun control debate is one that may never fully conclude. There are valid arguments to be made across the board, whether it be for or against gun control. One thing that I found interesting while doing this assignment however, was how much easier it was to find articles regarding increased gun control. I believe that this is a direct result of how times are changing and how it is slowly becoming the societal norm to feel strongly against guns because of all of the violence going on in this world. This just magnifies the need to “map out” controversies such as this one so that people may be able to gain a solid understanding of topics before they argue them.

Sources

Gebelhoff, Robert. “Opponents of Gun Reforms Say Nothing Can Be Done. Science Says They’re Wrong.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/gun-control-that-works/.

Kleck, Gary. “Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? .” SAGE Journals, 2016, journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0734016816670457.

Pérez-peña, Richard. “Gun Control Explained.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html.

Rogers, Kelsey. “Gun Violence – We’ve Had Enough!” Impact Fund, Impact Fund, 6 Oct. 2015, http://www.impactfund.org/social-justice-blog/gun-violence-weve-had-enough?gclid=Cj0KCQiAwMP9BRCzARIsAPWTJ_GyRWEg3UdAcSEPyKG-496UaXRJhSgmq3V1s3q-BS66SvQwHI-tVO4aArTrEALw_wcB.

Stossel, John. “Why Guns Are Good.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 12 Nov. 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-guns-are-good.