Rebuttal Rewrite – chickennugget246

Posted on April 12, 2023 by chickennugget246

Do Not Wear Your Seat Belt

Seat belts can be fatal. They can also cause severe injuries if an individual is involved in a car accident and wearing this restrictive device. To reduce these risks, take off the belt, drive more cautiously and be relentlessly aware of the road and its surroundings.

To begin, the opponents of this viewpoint strongly suggest statistics that promote the use of seat belts. The article “Seat Belt Statistics” states that “seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45% and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.” The same article also notes that “on average, 47% of people who die in car accidents weren’t wearing their seat belts.” Reading such an article seems to suggest that it is imperative to wear seat belts for protection and in order to save lives. The reasoning is if a driver gets into an accident, the purpose of the safety belt is to hold the person in place and keep the person secured in the seat. In addition, fastening a seat belt will supposedly keep the occupant from being ejected through a window or thrown into a windshield. The opponents promise that seat belts are designed to protect the passengers. But, if seat belts are devices that are supposed to save lives and spare drivers from serious injuries, then they should completely reduce the risk of dying in a car crash and reduce the risk of serious injury. But they do not. According to “Seat Belt Statistics,” they reduce the risk of serious injury by only 50% and the risk of death by only 45%, which is much lower than what we would expect. While all of these claims by the opponents appear to be valid on the surface, these promises are clearly not full-proof. In fact, they are far from the truth.

On the contrary to these opponents’ ideas, seat belt use is dangerous. Consider getting into a horrific car accident, needing to get out of the vehicle, but you cannot because the seat belt is strapping you in a locked position, preventing escape from the seat. In addition, according to the Washington Post article “Here’s how good (or awful) your hometown drivers are at wearing a seatbelt,” there are about 14% of people nationwide who do not wear seat belts. According to the article “Common Seat Belt Issues: Why You Should Get Them Checked,” there are defects that could include locking issues, a torn or worn belt, belt slack, belt failure, and even retractor failure. They malfunction and because of that, they will not protect you, instead they will kill you. Included in the report “Seat Belt Injuries,” seat belts can cause serious injuries. Seat belts not only impact the neck, spine, head, chest, abdomen, and other internal structures, seat belts can be lethal.

In addition, according to information on “Seat Belt Injury Statistics,” “thousands of people suffer severe injuries or lose their lives every year due to a defective or malfunctioning seat belt.” Such injuries occur during the pressure of extreme force upon impact with the restraint from the seat belt. This article discusses injuries that include skin abrasions and bruising, as well as, internal injuries, such as liver or spleen lacerations. Other symptoms could encompass severe soreness when breathing, laying down, or moving one’s arms. These common injuries caused by the use of a seat belt are commonly referred to as seat belt syndrome. These victims could suffer in pain which could last for days or even up to weeks after an accident.

As indicated by “A Seat Belt History Timeline,” safety restraints in a vehicle can be traced back to about two centuries. The article explained how the use of seat belts was not strictly enforced and only about 10% of Americans wore seat belts in their vehicles in the 1980s. They have been available to use in motor vehicles, but not all states immediately mandated the use of them. Even today, as mentioned on “Seat Belt Law,” the state of New Hampshire does not have a seat belt law requiring people over the age of eighteen to wear a seat belt. There are no significant amounts of accidents in New Hampshire as compared to other states that are wearing seat belts. In fact, this article also points out that “even in the absence of a seat belt law, New Hampshire’s roads are among the safest in the country.” Moreover, New Hampshire is not among the top five states that have the most car accidents. In fact, New Hampshire is ranked twenty ninth among the states. According to “Car Accidents by State,” these top five states requiring seat belts include California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, all of which have a fatality rate that is significantly higher than the fatality rate in New Hampshire, the state that does not require a seat belt.

Some groups are even against such seat belt legislation. These individuals believe that the laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement on one’s individual liberty. Also, they believe that the number of lives saved by wearing seat belts are overstated.

Some groups are even against such seat belt legislation. These individuals believe that the laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement on one’s individual liberty. Also, they believe that the number of lives saved by wearing seat belts are overstated. According to “Risk Homeostasis: Reducing risk does not necessarily reduce accidents,” Dr. Gerald Wilde, a professor of psychology at Queen’s University, proposed a theory in 1982, called the Risk Homeostasis Theory. It states that “every person has an acceptable level of risk that they find tolerable.” There is a subjective level of risk, and the theory suggests that rather than more controls and restrictions, sometimes fewer controls and more motivation could be much more effective. It also states that when people make their own decisions about reducing risk to an appropriate level, they will then behave accordingly.

Can wearing a seat belt cause injury? Did any one person ever die from wearing a seat belt? Can fastening a seat belt cause internal injury and/or brain injury? The answer to all of these questions is a profound yes.

There are many excuses for not wanting to wear a seat belt. “It is so uncomfortable,” “I’m just going down the street and I’ll be home in a minute,” and the favorite, “I am a great driver.” The one excuse that really sticks out is “it could kill you,” literally. Even if you do wear a seat belt, it could be defective and still cause you to be seriously injured. We must not risk the mechanical failure of seat belts. Seat belts are instruments of injury. The solution is simple. Be smart, be proactive, and take responsibility on the road, so that every time you put your foot on the gas pedal, you know you are coming home safely.

References

“Common Seat Belt Issues: Why You Should Get Them Checked.” September 8, 2021.

Huecker, M. R., Chapman, J. “Seat Belt Injuries.” StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. 2022 Sep 9.

Ingraham, C. “Here’s how good (or awful) your hometown drivers are at wearing a seatbelt.” April 4, 2017.

McGinley, K., Brennan, R. (2022, December 29). “Car Accidents by State.”

Lubitz, K. (2020, July 21). “Risk Homeostasis: Reducing risk does not necessarily reduce accidents.”

“Seat Belt Law.” Retrieved April 17, 2023.

“Seat Belt Injury Statistics.” Retrieved April 17, 2023.

“Seat Belt Statistics.” The Zebra. (2023, January 31).

Sheldon, A. “A Seat Belt History Timeline.” March 2, 2023.

Posted in ChickenNugget, Rebuttal Rewrite | 5 Comments

Rebuttal – chickennugget246

Posted on April 12, 2023 by chickennugget246

Do Not Wear Your Seat Belt

Does wearing a seat belt protect you from all car accidents? Does a seat belt guarantee you safety in a vehicle? Can simply fastening a seat belt magically place a bubble around you while driving your vehicle? Some believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, no doubt. But, they are wrong. 

Seat belts can be fatal. They can cause severe injuries from getting into a car accident. Not wearing seat belts can reduce these risks of getting extremely hurt in a car accident. They can even reduce the risks of accidents overall since the driver will drive more cautiously and be a lot more aware of their surroundings, from not wearing a seal belt. But, unfortunately, there are people who disagree with this statement. 

To begin, the opponent, and a worthy one at that, strongly suggests statistics that look great on paper. “Seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45% and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.” Also, “on average, 47% of people who die in car accidents weren’t wearing their seat belts.” It seems imperative to wear the seat belt for your own protection and to save your life. If a driver gets into an accident, the job of the safety belt is to hold the person back and cause the person to stay in the seat and firmly hold the person in place. Seat belts are designed to protect its passengers. We are told that fastening a seat belt will hold you in place and keep you from being ejected through a window or a windshield. Just as important as protecting the driver, wearing a seat belt is the law in most states and we should obey the law. Moreover, if one chooses not to obey the law, many states will even issue the driver a ticket for violating the seat belt law. 

On the contrary, seat belt use is not always ideal. Consider getting into a horrific car accident and needing to get out of the vehicle, but you cannot because the seat belt is holding you, strapping you, in a locked position with no leverage at all to escape from the crushed car. In addition, what about the other 50% of the people who were not wearing their seat belt. They survived. However, we do not live on paper, and through statistics, we live in the real, tangible world. In addition, seat belts fail. There are defects that could include false latching, a torn or worn belt, belt slack, belt failure, and even retractor failure. They malfunction and because of that, they will not protect you, instead they will kill you. Reports have proven that seat belts cause serious injury. Seat belts can impact the neck, spine, head, chest, abdomen, and other internal structures. Seat belts can be fatal.

In addition, and a substantial addition at that, buckling up can absolutely cause severe injury. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “thousands of people suffer severe injuries or lose their lives every year due to a defective or malfunctioning seat belt.” Such injuries occur during the pressure of extreme force upon impact with the restraint from a seat belt. These injuries could include skin abrasions and bruising, as well as, internal injuries, such as liver or spleen lacerations. Other symptoms could encompass severe soreness when breathing, laying down, or moving one’s arms. These common injuries caused by the use of a seat belt are commonly referred to as seat belt syndrome. These victims could suffer in pain which could last for days or even up to weeks after an accident.

Even though these safety restraints in a vehicle have been accessible for use for over 125 years, they were not always enforced. They have been available to use in motor vehicles, but not all states or countries immediately mandated the use of them. For instance, “seat belts are not universally used in most countries.” These countries that, at some stage, participated in excluding the seat belt are Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and Spain. Similarly, the state of New Hampshire does not have a seat belt law requiring people over the age of eighteen to wear a seat belt. There are no significant amounts of accidents in New Hampshire as compared to other states that are wearing seat belts. Moreover, New Hampshire is not among the top five states that have the most car accidents. These states include California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. Even though these states are mandated to wear seat belts, not every individual follows the law.

For example, some groups are even against such seat belt legislation. These individuals believe that the laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement on one’s individual liberty. Also, they believe that the number of lives saved by wearing seat belts are overstated. Dr. Gerald Wilde, a professor of psychology at Queen’s University, proposed a theory in 1982. It was called the Risk Homeostasis Theory and it stated that “every person has an acceptable level of risk that they find tolerable.” There is a subjective level of risk, and this theory suggests that rather than more controls and restrictions, sometimes fewer controls and more motivation could be much more effective. It also states that when people make their own decisions about reducing risk to an appropriate level, they will then behave accordingly.

So, we consider, can wearing a seat belt cause injury? Did any one person ever die from wearing a seat belt? Can fastening a seat belt cause internal injury and/or brain injury? The answer to all of these questions is yes, no doubt.

There are so many excuses one could admit to for not wanting to wear a seat belt. “It is so uncomfortable,” “I’m just going down the street and I’ll be home in a minute,” and the favorite, “I am a great driver.” The one excuse that really sticks out, it could kill you, literally. Even if you do wear a seat belt, it could be defective and still cause you to be ejected from the vehicle or hit the windshield and suffer a traumatic injury. It is an instrument of injury. We must not risk the failure of the seat belt. The answer is simple. Be smart, be proactive, and take responsibility on the road. Keep yourself safe so that every time you put your foot on the gas pedal, you know you are coming home safe.

References

Lubitz, K. “Risk Homeostasis: Reducing risk does not necessarily reduce accidents” McKinley, K. and Brennan, R. “Car Accidents by State” Dec. 29, 2022 www.policygenius.com

The Zebra, “Seat belt statistics” www.zebra.com

www.seanclearypa.com

Posted in ChickenNugget, Rebuttal Argument | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – Gobirds

Posted on April 12, 2023 by gobirds115

Abuse Can be a Big Deal but Use is a Way to Heal

There’s an old saying that everything is okay in moderation. There are some instances where that simply isn’t true. However, in the case of circumstantially legalizing certain banned substances in Major League Baseball I think this saying holds true.

In previous decades, we saw players get juiced up on all different kinds of androgenic steroids, anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and every other kind of extreme drug that would induce muscle mass and cause players to turn into the massive, chiseled, greek god like beings. This obviously caused evident competitive advantages as players who had previously been mediocre became these powerful home run threats at the plate and rise to stardom after being the scrawny role player. The problem that arose during this time period was the blatant abuse of performance enhancing drugs and of course the problem it created with competition.

But because of this time period in Major League Baseball, I believe that not only has Major League Baseball learned how to crack down on steroid abuse but the scientific and technological advances made since then would allow the implementation of these substances as healing agents to go smoothly. Everything can be tracked now for the most part so monitoring players levels of injury, monitoring drug levels, collecting data, and whatever else needs to be done to ensure the program runs correctly shouldn’t be an issue.

If there was a downside to some of these PED’s being implemented into Major League Baseball, it would have to be the risk that some of these drugs can have on an individuals health. The article “Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature” is a case report that assess two people who used anabolic androgenic steroids and experienced anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) induced liver injury as a result of doing so.

The first person they studied was a 30 year old man with a history of taking creatine supplements for performance but claimed he’d never taken AAS. The man claims to have been experiencing jaundice and diarrhea in the recent past. As the first part of his assessment they measured levels in his liver. The results are as stated “His bilirubin was 181μmol/L, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 66 IU/L, alanine transaminase (ALT) 257 IU/L and creatinine (Cr) 97 μmol/L.” His levels in ALP and Creatine levels were in a normal range but that’s not the case for his bilirubin and ALT levels. According to UCSF Health, a normal level range for ALT is between 4 and 36 IU/L. If I’m any good at math, he’s quite passed that range by a few hundred. According to Mount Sinai Health Library, normal levels of bilirubin are between 1.7 and 20.5 μmol/L. Yet again, the mathematician in me says these levels are high by quite a bit. His symptoms worsened over the next week or so and he eventually had to be admitted to the hospital where they found chronic hepatitis B. The hepatitis was easily managed but something was still wrong. He admitted to use of an AAS upon further questioning as his liver biochemistry worsened. To make a long story short, his levels kept spiking to dangerously high levels and it took a series of medication, medical practices, and 2 months time for his levels to return to normal after stopping steroids.

The reason his case is important to mention when discussing potentially implementing drugs similar to the ones he was using back into Major League Baseball is because he’s in a similar demographic to a majority of the league’s players. That demographic of course being men around 30 years old (MLB average player age is 26-30 years old in 2022 according to Statista).

I can’t say for certain players in the league who look at a case like this man’s will be ok with using substances similar to the ones that this man used as it compromised his health. But what I can say is that the man in this case took these drugs on his own without any prescription or any kind of supervision. We know this because when asked about use of AAS use the article states “He used Creatine supplements for performance enhancement but denied AAS use”. This of course was prior to him admitting his use of an AAS after he learned about the severity of his liver biochemistry. He could’ve taken ridiculous amounts of these drugs and had no clue the harm he was doing until he finally was assessed by a doctor.

Before I go any further I want to clarify that I don’t think that a case like this man’s is impossible for a player to experience as a result of Major League Baseball adopting a system as previously mentioned to regulate PED’s. But I do believe that the chances would be quite low considering the amount of time, effort, supervision, technology, equipment, and knowledge that would be backing a program that’s being implemented in a multi billion dollar industry. Let alone the league itself, each team is so incredibly wealthy that staffing a group of people who’s sole priority is to monitor these players during their recovery while using PED’s would be something that owners would be more than willing to spend their money on. Owners spend so much on star caliber players that it is worth every penny to do everything in their power to keep them on the field where they can do what they’re getting paid to do. When the stars of the game are on the field more consistently, it makes it so much more enjoyable for fans to watch games knowing that night in and night out the best of the best will be going at it. What was once a skid mark on the face of baseball (the skid mark being PED’s) could really be a “game-changer” for the future of Major League Baseball.

Works Cited

Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature

Major League Baseball rosters by average player age in 2022

Alanine transaminase (ALT) blood test

Bilirubin blood test

*All sources accessed on April 12th, 2023*

Posted in GoBirds, Rebuttal Rewrite | 3 Comments

Rebuttal – Gobirds115

Posted on April 12, 2023 by gobirds115

Abuse Can be a Big Deal but Use is a Way to Heal

There’s an old saying that everything is okay in moderation. There are some instances where that simply isn’t true. However, in the case of circumstantially legalizing certain banned substances in Major League Baseball I think this saying holds true.

In previous decades, we saw players get juiced up on all different kinds of androgenic steroids, anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and every other kind of extreme drug that would induce muscle mass and cause players to turn into the massive, chiseled, greek god like beings. This obviously caused evident competitive advantages as players who had previously been mediocre became these powerful home run threats at the plate and rise to stardom after being the scrawny role player. The problem that arose during this time period was the blatant abuse of performance enhancing drugs and of course the problem it created with competition.

But because of this time period in Major League Baseball, I believe that not only has Major League Baseball learned how to crack down on steroid abuse but the scientific and technological advances made since then would allow the implementation of these substances as healing agents to go smoothly. Everything can be tracked now for the most part so monitoring players levels of injury, monitoring drug levels, collecting data, and whatever else needs to be done to ensure the program runs correctly shouldn’t be an issue.

If there was a downside to some of these PED’s being implemented into Major League Baseball, it would have to be the risk that some of these drugs can have on an individuals health. The article “Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature” is a case report that assess two people who used anabolic androgenic steroids and experienced anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) induced liver injury as a result of doing so.

The first person they studied was a 30 year old man with a history of taking creatine supplements for performance but claimed he’d never taken AAS. The man claims to have been experiencing jaundice and diarrhea in the recent past. As the first part of his assessment they measured levels in his liver. The results are as stated “His bilirubin was 181μmol/L, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 66 IU/L, alanine transaminase (ALT) 257 IU/L and creatinine (Cr) 97 μmol/L.” His levels in ALP and Creatine levels were in a normal range but that’s not the case for his bilirubin and ALT levels. According to UCSF Health, a normal level range for ALT is between 4 and 36 IU/L. If I’m any good at math, he’s quite passed that range by a few hundred. According to Mount Sinai Health Library, normal levels of bilirubin are between 1.7 and 20.5 μmol/L. Yet again, the mathematician in me says these levels are high by quite a bit. His symptoms worsened over the next week or so and he eventually had to be admitted to the hospital where they found chronic hepatitis B. The hepatitis was easily managed but something was still wrong. He admitted to use of an AAS upon further questioning as his liver biochemistry worsened. To make a long story short, his levels kept spiking to dangerously high levels and it took a series of medication, medical practices, and 2 months time for his levels to return to normal after stopping steroids.

The reason his case is important to mention when discussing potentially implementing drugs similar to the ones he was using back into Major League Baseball is because he’s in a similar demographic to a majority of the league’s players. That demographic of course being men around 30 years old (MLB average player age is 26-30 years old in 2022 according to Statista).

I can’t say for certain players in the league who look at a case like this man’s will be ok with using substances similar to the ones that this man used as it compromised his health. But what I can say is that the man in this case took these drugs on his own without any prescription or any kind of supervision. We know this because when asked about use of AAS use the article states “He used Creatine supplements for performance enhancement but denied AAS use”. This of course was prior to him admitting his use of an AAS after he learned about the severity of his liver biochemistry. He could’ve taken ridiculous amounts of these drugs and had no clue the harm he was doing until he finally was assessed by a doctor.

Before I go any further I want to clarify that I don’t think that a case like this man’s is impossible for a player to experience as a result of Major League Baseball adopting a system as previously mentioned to regulate PED’s. But I do believe that the chances would be quite low considering the amount of time, effort, supervision, technology, equipment, and knowledge that would be backing a program that’s being implemented in a multi billion dollar industry. Let alone the league itself, each team is so incredibly wealthy that staffing a group of people who’s sole priority is to monitor these players during their recovery while using PED’s would be something that owners would be more than willing to spend their money on. Owners spend so much on star caliber players that it is worth every penny to do everything in their power to keep them on the field where they can do what they’re getting paid to do. When the stars of the game are on the field more consistently, it makes it so much more enjoyable for fans to watch games knowing that night in and night out the best of the best will be going at it. What was once a skid mark on the face of baseball (the skid mark being PED’s) could really be a “game-changer” for the future of Major League Baseball.

Works Cited

Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature

Major League Baseball rosters by average player age in 2022

Alanine transaminase (ALT) blood test

Bilirubin blood test

*All sources accessed on April 12th, 2023*

Posted in Portfolio Tasks, Rebuttal Argument, You Forgot to Categorize! | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – SortableElms

Posted on April 12, 2023 by sortableelms

Is Graffiti Really A Bad Thing?

Street Art is a form of expression and an evolution from the graffiti that gang members would use in the late 80s. Famous graffiti artist turned street artist Banksy explains that graffiti is the natural art of expression for kids that have been told to hold their opinions. Though not everyone is a fan of the expression or the ideas behind the pieces of art as it is technically illegal still. A typical depiction of the word graffiti is that of an old man being critical of the newer art form. One of its critics is American filmmaker, visual artist, and actor David Lynch. Lynch believes that scrawled and spray-painted inchoate messages on “every corner of every city” does not help the world.

My opponent has a point with his idea of not wanting to have spray paint and the negative messages on streets but what he isn’t taking into account is the beautiful street art that has come from graffiti artists. Saying that there is only a tiny amount that is creative is foolish. There are just as many examples of graffiti that are creative, sharing a message, sharing culture or all the mentioned before, and more.
The words that are used to describe ideas behind graffiti and the art form as a whole is that the “vast majority of graffiti is ugly, stupid, and vaguely threatening.” Only acknowledging “a tiny portion of it is witty or creative.” There are many examples of bad and downright negative expressions on walls and fences that are just tags or a list of negative curse words. I acknowledge that. Talking about the negative slides leads to having to talk about the positives.

Located in any major city there is bound to be graffiti. Unlike my opponent who believes graffiti is just tagging words and scribbling in spray paint. I can see that there is a history behind graffiti. Take for example if you look up graffiti murals on Google it brings up everything from cartoon ghosts to Animals from the Muppets with an explosive color background to realist portraits of some of the biggest names in music like David Bowie and Micheal Jackson and messages supporting Black Lives Matter using faces like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.

The article talking about Lynch’s idea on graffiti leans heavily into just acknowledging the bold spray-painted words. The article never mentions that it is a form of a way of getting ideas out in the world without violence and is a way to make a concrete jungle more vibrant and colorful. Even the type of illegal graffiti can rise in status and become art, a gift that is given to us by talented individuals who may have no other outlet for their creative drive.

Lynch admits the idea that it is negative and nothing good can come from Graffiti. The usage of graffiti has many positive effects, one of which is that it brings a form of art out to the public without being locked behind the paywall of museums. A problem with art in the 21st century is the notion that it’s sometimes just not seen, thanks to a lack of interest from people. The younger generations don’t go to museums and art exhibitions. They are stuck on phones and computers. Meaning they aren’t exposed to works of art. Well-made graffiti helps to reassess this problem by bringing art directly to the public. Pushing it in their faces, and helps to grow an interest in artwork that will drive individuals to explore the art world further and get their ideas into the world.

It is a form of self-expression that can’t be taken away from the artist or limited by galleries. Graffiti gives people the advantage of being anonymous and the freedom to express themselves in a way that they wouldn’t have otherwise. This freedom comes from the accessibility of graffiti, the only thing that is needed is a spray can and an idea. The artist can create what he or she wants, as opposed to having to purchase expensive supplies to get started and expensive canvas. For other graffiti artists, the advantage of the medium is that they can express an opinion or idea, such as a political point, and get it seen. If the art is seen most of the time, it can create an impact.

As mentioned above graffiti can turn a skyline of gray boxes into a rainbow of colors of various tones and ideas. Well-done graffiti art is typically colorful and bold, and thus it changes the mood of the particular area where it appears. In most cases, this change is positive, since the art turns drab and monotone boxes and bare walls into interesting and eye-catching exhibitions of the imagination. Neighborhoods are brightened up without local authorities needing to engage in helping to clean up buildings since the paint covers them.

The idea of graffiti seems negative to Lynch but in reality, if a piece is done well it can bring attention to a previously unknown area. A group of high-quality graffiti contained within a particular area can raise that neighborhood’s profile significantly as an arts scene and spot in a trip that can bring thoughts to a group of people or just smiles, depending on the piece in question. Other artists will begin to travel there, and the cultural value of the area increases. This can in the long-term aid the local economy, as tourists head to the area to look at the graffiti, and locally made tours pop up to show visitors around and show off the works of art littering their streets.

Art is often taught to children as part of their education, but not everyone likes it. Some individuals might not enjoy traditional forms, such as painting and sculpture, while others fail to find art relevant to their lives. When graffiti is taught as an alternative to traditional, it may inspire individuals.

References

Jones, J. (2015, March 13). Graffiti is ugly, stupid and threatening – there’s more creativity in crochet. The Guardian. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/mar/13/graffiti-ugly-stupid-threatening-ruining-world-david-lynch

Laboy, S. (2011, July 13). Miami graffiti artists free to leave their mark. Washington Times. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/miami-graffiti-artists-free-to-leave-their-mark/

Posted in Portfolio SortableElms, Rebuttal Rewrite, SortableElms | 2 Comments

Rebuttal – SortableElms

Posted on April 12, 2023 by sortableelms

Is Graffiti Really A Bad Thing?

Street Art is a form of expression and an evolution from the graffiti that gang members would use in the late 80s. Famous graffiti artist turned street artist Banksy explains that graffiti is the natural art of expression for the kids that have been told to hold their opinions. Though not everyone is a fan of the expression or the ideas behind the pieces of art as it is technically illegal still. A typical depiction of the word graffiti is that of an old man being critical of the newer art form. One of its critics is American filmmaker, visual artist and actor David Lynch. Lynch believes that scrawled and spray painted inchoate messages on “every corner of every city” does not not help the world.

My opponent has a point with his idea of not wanting to have spray paint and the negative messages on streets but what he isn’t taking into account is the beautiful street art that has come from graffiti artists. Saying that there is only a tiny amount that is creative is foolish. There are just as many examples of graffiti that are creative, sharing a message, sharing a culture or all the mentioned before and more.

The words that are used to describe ideas behind graffiti and  the art form as a whole is that the “vast majority of graffiti is ugly, stupid and vaguely threatening.” Only acknowledging “a tiny portion of it is witty or creative.” There are many examples of the bad and down right negative expressions on walls and fences that are just tags or a list of negative curse words. I acknowledge that. Talking about the negative slides lead to have to talk about the positives.

Located in any major city there is bound to be graffiti. Unlike my opponent who believes graffiti is just tagging words and scribbles in spray paint. I can see that there is history behind graffiti. Take for example if you look up graffiti murals in Google it brings up everything from cartoon ghosts to Animal from the Muppets with explosive color background to realist portraits of some of the biggest names in music like David Bowie and Micheal Jackson and messages supporting Black Lives Matter using faces like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.

The article talking on Lynch’s idea on graffiti leans heavily into just acknowledging the bold spray painted words. The article never mentions that it is a form of a way of getting ideas out in the world without violence and is a way to make a concrete jungle more vibrant and colorful. Even the type of illegal graffiti can rise in status and become art, a gift that is given to us by talented individuals who may have no other outlet for their creative drive. 

Lynch is admit about the idea that it is negitive and nothing good can come from Graffiti. The usage of graffiti has many positive effects, one of which is that it brings a form of art out to the public without being locked behind the paywall of museums. A problem with art in the 21st century is the notion that it’s sometimes just not seen, thanks to a lack of interest from people. The younger generations don’t go to museums and art exhibitions. They are stuck on phones and computers. Meaning they aren’t exposed to works of art. Well made graffiti helps to reassess this problem by bringing art directly to the public. Pushing it in their faces, and helps to grow an interest in artwork that will drive individuals to explore the art world further and get their ideas in the world.

It is a form of self-expression that can’t be taken away from the artist or limited by galleries. Graffiti gives people the advantage of being anonymous and the freedom to express themselves in a way that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. This freedom comes from the accessibility of graffiti, the only thing that is needed is a spray can and an idea. The artist can create what he or she wants, as opposed to having to purchase expensive supplies to get started and expensive canvas. For other graffiti artists, the advantage of the medium is that they can express an opinion or idea, such as a political point, and get it seen. If the art is seen most of the time, it can create an impact.

As mentioned above graffiti can turn a skyline of gray boxes into a rainbow of colors of various tones and ideas. Well done graffiti art is typically colorful and bold, and thus it changes the mood of the particular area where it appears. In most cases, this change is positive, since the art turns drab and monotone boxes and bare walls into interesting and eye-catching exhibitions of the imagination. Neighborhoods are brightened up without local authorities needing to engage in helping to clean up buildings since the paint covers it. 

The idea of graffiti seems negative to Lynch but in reality if a piece is done well it can bring attention to a previously unknown area. A group of high-quality graffiti contained within a particular area can raise that neighborhood’s profile significantly as an arts scene and spot in a trip that can bring thoughts to a group of people or just smiles, depending on the piece in question. Other artists will begin to travel there, and the cultural value of the area increases. This can in the long-term aid the local economy, as tourists head to the area to look at the graffiti, and locally made tours pop up to show visitors around and show off the works of art littering their streets. 

Art is often taught to children as part of their education, but not everyone likes it. The individual might not enjoy traditional forms, such as painting and sculpture, while others fail to find art relevant within their lives. When graffiti is taught as an alternative to traditional, it may inspire individuals. 

References

Jones, J. (2015, March 13). Graffiti is ugly, stupid and threatening – there’s more creativity in crochet. The Guardian. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/mar/13/graffiti-ugly-stupid-threatening-ruining-world-david-lynch

Laboy, S. (2011, July 13). Miami graffiti artists free to leave their mark. Washington Times. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/miami-graffiti-artists-free-to-leave-their-mark/

Posted in Portfolio SortableElms, Rebuttal Argument, SortableElms | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite — Shazammm

Posted on April 12, 2023 by Samantha Szumloz

To My Objectors

It has been proven over the past decades that theater is a beneficial instrument to helping kids reach their full potential in classrooms and social settings. However, there are still school boards in America that do not prioritize the arts in academia. Instead, they evaluate children on their standardized test scores rather than their participation in extracurricular activities. In lieu of assessing raw talent and social skills, school boards analyze their students’ abilities to solve strenuous math problems, or pick out complex themes from old texts in a short amount of time. Things that put students under immense pressure. 

From 2002 to 2015, the No Child Left Behind Act {NCLB} implemented this practice in schools. Its goal, according to Andrew M.I. Lee, “was to provide more education opportunities for students. It focused on four key groups: students in poverty, students of color, students receiving special education services, and those who speak and understand limited or no English… NCLB held schools accountable for how kids learn and achieve. It did this through annual testing, reporting, improvement targets, and penalties for schools. These changes made NCLB controversial, but they also forced schools to focus on disadvantaged kids.” 

The act came to a close in 2015 when a new law called the Every Student Succeeds Act {ESSA} entered the picture, which is still in effect today. But it still encourages schools to test their students on math and reading capabilities. Lee writes, “The Every Student Succeeds Act responds to some of the key criticisms of NCLB. One is that NCLB relied too much on standardized tests. Another is that schools faced harsh penalties when all of their students weren’t on track to reach proficiency on state tests. At the same time, the new law keeps some aspects of No Child Left Behind. For example, states are still required to report on the progress of traditionally underserved kids. This includes kids in special education… States still have to test students in reading and math once a year in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in high school.” So, even though schools are still testing kids, the procedure is not as played up as it used to be.  

Do not get me wrong, though. Standardized testing does assist the academic needs of children in some capacity. For example, test scores help educators identify struggling students, allowing them to properly assess their needs and make accommodations for them if necessary. Test scores are also used to distinguish advanced students from the student body, permitting them to learn at their desired pace. And just like what Lee wrote, standardized testing provides support for disadvantaged youth and kids with special needs. So the practice does have some perks. Especially now that the NCLB has been replaced with the ESSA. 

Still, there are some educators and parents who put too much pressure on their students to succeed on standardized tests. And not because their health will benefit from it, either. Adults have turned the process of standardized testing into a competition between schools. I took part in this “competition” when I was in secondary school, myself. Teachers would dedicate an entire day to go over the material on the tests – material that did not pertain to the curriculum whatsoever. My friends’ parents would force their children to solve nonsensical math problems in hopes that they would achieve a high score, hopefully, recognition from the school. My middle school even had a banner displayed outside the building that boasted about the student body’s overall test score. 

In other words, many educators and parents have warped the definition of standardized testing for kids. They view the practice as a means of showing off their childrens’ intellectual capabilities. Not necessarily to better understand their needs in school. Personally, this is one of many reasons why children have so much anxiety. Too much anxiety and pressure can lead to a disruption in artistic creativity. Especially for those who find comfort in artistic pursuits such as drawing, painting, and performing. Too much public focus on standardized testing and non-creative subjects can blind people from other areas in academia such as the arts. 

Therefore, how should school boards go about this issue? Teachers should understand that most children learn differently. That means there are some students who are stronger than others in certain areas of study. For them to prove their understanding, they must be accommodating to those struggling. Even if that means giving them extra time on tests, showing them new methods of solving problems/answering questions, and providing additional help if need be. Educators must also show support and interest in their students’ passions. That way, children can feel seen for who they truly are rather than their test scores. This goes for parental figures, too. 

Teachers should also always prioritize their actual coursework first rather than the standardized tests. That way, the learning environment will feel like a space of progression rather than a massive study session with no mercy. According to Lee, the ESSA basically states that “under the new law, states may now consider more than just student test scores when evaluating schools. In fact, they must come up with at least one other measure. Other measures might include things like school safety and access to advanced coursework. But student performance is still the most important measure under the law.” Teachers must look at student performance in the classroom first. They cannot merely go by test scores, for many students struggle with tests in general.  

Schools should additionally stop putting so much stress on standardized testing. Yes, it is a helpful thing to have to check the progress of students., and they should try their best on those tests. However, standardized testing, like I said before, should not be a competition as to who is more advanced or whatnot. So, if schools treat it less like a sport, the more students will be able to breathe. It will also allow them to explore their fields of interests more freely.  

References

Lee, Andrew. {date unknown}. “What is No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?”  Understood. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/no-child-left-behind-nclb-what-you-need-to-know

Lee, Andrew. {December 10, 2015}. “No Child Left Behind Comes to an End With the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.” Understood.  https://www.understood.org/en/articles/no-child-left-behind-comes-to-an-end-with-the-passage-of-the-every-student-succeeds-act

Klein, Alyson. {March 31, 2016}. “The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA Overview.” Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/the-every-student-succeeds-act-an-essa-overview/2016/03

Posted in Portfolio SP23, Rebuttal Rewrite, Shazammm | 6 Comments

Rebuttal — Shazammm

Posted on April 12, 2023 by Samantha Szumloz

To My Objectors

It has been proven over the past decades that theater is a beneficial instrument to helping kids reach their full potential in classrooms and social settings. However, there are still school boards in America that do not prioritize the arts in academia. Instead, they evaluate children on their standardized test scores rather than their participation in extracurricular activities. In lieu of assessing raw talent and social skills, school boards analyze their students’ abilities to solve strenuous math problems, or pick out complex themes from old texts in a short amount of time. Things that put students under immense pressure. 

From 2002 to 2015, the No Child Left Behind Act {NCLB} implemented this practice in schools. Its goal, according to Andrew M.I. Lee, “was to provide more education opportunities for students. It focused on four key groups: students in poverty, students of color, students receiving special education services, and those who speak and understand limited or no English… NCLB held schools accountable for how kids learn and achieve. It did this through annual testing, reporting, improvement targets, and penalties for schools. These changes made NCLB controversial, but they also forced schools to focus on disadvantaged kids.” 

The act came to a close in 2015 when a new law called the Every Student Succeeds Act {ESSA} entered the picture, which is still in effect today. But it still encourages schools to test their students on math and reading capabilities. Lee writes, “The Every Student Succeeds Act responds to some of the key criticisms of NCLB. One is that NCLB relied too much on standardized tests. Another is that schools faced harsh penalties when all of their students weren’t on track to reach proficiency on state tests. At the same time, the new law keeps some aspects of No Child Left Behind. For example, states are still required to report on the progress of traditionally underserved kids. This includes kids in special education… States still have to test students in reading and math once a year in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in high school.” So, even though schools are still testing kids, the procedure is not as played up as it used to be.  

Do not get me wrong, though. Standardized testing does assist the academic needs of children in some capacity. For example, test scores help educators identify struggling students, allowing them to properly assess their needs and make accommodations for them if necessary. Test scores are also used to distinguish advanced students from the student body, permitting them to learn at their desired pace. And just like what Lee wrote, standardized testing provides support for disadvantaged youth and kids with special needs. So the practice does have some perks. Especially now that the NCLB has been replaced with the ESSA. 

Still, there are some educators and parents who put too much pressure on their students to succeed on standardized tests. And not because their health will benefit from it, either. Adults have turned the process of standardized testing into a competition between schools. I took part in this “competition” when I was in secondary school, myself. Teachers would dedicate an entire day to go over the material on the tests – material that did not pertain to the curriculum whatsoever. My friends’ parents would force their children to solve nonsensical math problems in hopes that they would achieve a high score, hopefully, recognition from the school. My middle school even had a banner displayed outside the building that boasted about the student body’s overall test score. 

In other words, many educators and parents have warped the definition of standardized testing for kids. They view the practice as a means of showing off their childrens’ intellectual capabilities. Not necessarily to better understand their needs in school. Personally, this is one of many reasons why children have so much anxiety. Too much anxiety and pressure can lead to a disruption in artistic creativity. Especially for those who find comfort in artistic pursuits such as drawing, painting, and performing. Too much public focus on standardized testing and non-creative subjects can blind people from other areas in academia such as the arts. 

Therefore, how should school boards go about this issue? Teachers should understand that most children learn differently. That means there are some students who are stronger than others in certain areas of study. For them to prove their understanding, they must be accommodating to those struggling. Even if that means giving them extra time on tests, showing them new methods of solving problems/answering questions, and providing additional help if need be. Educators must also show support and interest in their students’ passions. That way, children can feel seen for who they truly are rather than their test scores. This goes for parental figures, too. 

Teachers should also always prioritize their actual coursework first rather than the standardized tests. That way, the learning environment will feel like a space of progression rather than a massive study session with no mercy. According to Lee, the ESSA basically states that “under the new law, states may now consider more than just student test scores when evaluating schools. In fact, they must come up with at least one other measure. Other measures might include things like school safety and access to advanced coursework. But student performance is still the most important measure under the law.” Teachers must look at student performance in the classroom first. They cannot merely go by test scores, for many students struggle with tests in general.  

Schools should additionally stop putting so much stress on standardized testing. Yes, it is a helpful thing to have to check the progress of students., and they should try their best on those tests. However, standardized testing, like I said before, should not be a competition as to who is more advanced or whatnot. So, if schools treat it less like a sport, the more students will be able to breathe. It will also allow them to explore their fields of interests more freely.  

References

Lee, Andrew. {date unknown}. “What is No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?”  Understood. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/no-child-left-behind-nclb-what-you-need-to-know

Lee, Andrew. {December 10, 2015}. “No Child Left Behind Comes to an End With the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.” Understood.  https://www.understood.org/en/articles/no-child-left-behind-comes-to-an-end-with-the-passage-of-the-every-student-succeeds-act

Klein, Alyson. {March 31, 2016}. “The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA Overview.” Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/the-every-student-succeeds-act-an-essa-overview/2016/03

Posted in Portfolio SP23, Rebuttal Argument, Shazammm | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite- Doglover846

Posted on April 12, 2023 by doglover846

Can Zoos Actually Cause
Endangered Animals To Go Extinct?

Overtime, Zoos have been one of the biggest controversial topics when talking about endangered species. As we know, endangered species have become more common as time goes on. And many people have different points of views on if zoos actually help or worsen the population of these species. An image is placed in minds where zoos hold animals captive and never let them be able to live their life to the fullest. However, not all cases are like that. Seriously endangered species need to be watched at all times to ensure they won’t go extinct. They also need to have research done so that zoologists and other scientists have more knowledge to prevent them from going extinct. Yes, Zoos can help in that aspect but they also hold animals that aren’t endangered, so why would they hold them in captivity?

As we know the world has been falling into a crisis, having different species die off left and right. There are many reasons that influence this crisis like, lack of knowledge, destruction of habitat, and not respecting the animals around us. In spite of that, sources have shown that  conservation translocations could help populations grow by rehabilitating small populations or allowing new ones to start. What conservation relocation is, is that it purposely moves and releases different types of  plants, animals, or fungi into the wild in order to save them from going extinct. Due to Richard Henry’s translocation experiment with birds led to an increasing amount of conversational translocation which ultimately helped to increase and gained the reintroduction of eminent species. This indicates the species to strengthen and broaden their activities making their population grow.

On the flip side, many studies show that conversational translocation can result in the species becoming overwhelmed and stressed. Having the animal being captured, transported and relocated into an area that has never been seen before or are not comfortable with can put a lot of stress on a wild animal. This stress can lead to a variety of major changes consisting of biological, physiological and behavioral changes. It can also lead to the animal having a hard time hunting and just completely cut out eating. It also can affect their relationships with the others in their population. Since animals depend on each other when it comes to hunting and protection, translocation can potentially hinder their routine of these sorts. 

Zoos use a variety of approaches to halt the extinction of species that cannot thrive in their natural environments. Captive breeding, in which animals are bred in restricted areas like farms, zoos, and aquariums outside of their natural environment, is a popular strategy. The expansion of the population to the point where it can be controlled, becomes stable, or where the species is in good health is the objective of captive breeding. To long-term maintain genetic diversity, zoos have relied on explicit pedigrees. The majority of animals raised in captivity are unable to return to their natural habitats, but it is not impossible. In some instances, animals have the strength to go back into the wild and continue living their lives as if they had never left.

However, while captive breeding can help different populations, not everyone follows that criteria. Their priority is to provide entertainment for visitors with baby animals. Their intentions were never to help the species, instead to help the zoos get more profits. Doing this the baby animals are never going to be able to see the wild and live out their life without being held in captivity. Even if they do get a chance, the zoos never prepare the animals enough for them to survive in the wild. Not only could the chances of the offspring being let out in the wild be slim to none, there are also side effects that can be caused by captive breeding. Example being inbreeding. Inbreeding is characterized by lower rates of growth and reproduction, higher mortality rates, and the prevalence of hereditary abnormalities. This isn’t a way that animals should be living their lives, they should be out in the wild. 

In addition to the fact that captive breeding assistance develops the species populace, there are a ton of advantages that accompany it. For instance, it could assist in educating people about the various animals and the environments in which they live, which can potentially generate funds for shelters and research. Instruction and public mindfulness is essential to aiding jeopardized creatures since we can figure out how to safeguard them and fund-raise towards reserves so more examination should be possible. By allowing children to learn about, become interested in, and appreciate wildlife, zoos and aquariums contribute significantly to public awareness. The majority of zoos and aquariums have information about each species that tells where their habitats are, what they eat, how long they live, and other details. People gain knowledge of their local and global environments by seeing this information on display. This may assist citizens in realizing that they must preserve and clean the environment around them in order for animals to live in safer areas. As a result, this may be able to maintain the animal’s population.

Zoos over all strip not only endangered species, but all animals from their natural habitat and hold them in captivity with little to no knowledge of what the outside world looks like. Instead they are behind bars used for entertainment. Animals shouldn’t live like that, they should be out running in the wild and fend for themselves. Animals are going to die, it’s inevitable. But it’s the circle of life.  Us humans shouldn’t try to take that away from them. Baby animals that are born in captivity will never fully learn how to fend for themselves if for the slight chance that they will be let out in the wild. Zoos are actually hindering the chances of populations to grow. Animals will naturally grow their population in the wild, we shouldn’t force them to produce, especially when they are held captive and scared.

References 

Click to access Wildlife-Translocation-WDM-Technical-Series.pdf

Williamson, B. (2020, October 15). Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity Is Not Conservation. Here’s Why. | World Animal Protection. Www.worldanimalprotection.us.

https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/keeping-wild-animals-captivity-not-conservation-heres-why

https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/keeping-wild-animals-captivity-not-conservation-heres-why/

‌

Why Are Zoos Bad? Why Animals Should not be Kept in Zoos?

Posted in DogLover, Portfolio DogLover, Rebuttal Rewrite | 1 Comment

Rebuttal- Doglover846

Posted on April 12, 2023 by doglover846

Can Zoos Actually Cause
Endangered Animals To Go Extinct?

Overtime, Zoos have been one of the biggest controversial topics when talking about endangered species. As we know, endangered species have become more common as time goes on. And many people have different points of views on if zoos actually help or worsen the population of these species. An image is placed in minds where zoos hold animals captive and never let them be able to live their life to the fullest. However, not all cases are like that. Seriously endangered species need to be watched at all times to ensure they won’t go extinct. They also need to have research done so that zoologists and other scientists have more knowledge to prevent them from going extinct. Yes, Zoos can help in that aspect but they also hold animals that aren’t endangered, so why would they hold them in captivity?

As we know the world has been falling into a crisis, having different species die off left and right. There are many reasons that influence this crisis like, lack of knowledge, destruction of habitat, and not respecting the animals around us. In spite of that, sources have shown that  conservation translocations could help populations grow by rehabilitating small populations or allowing new ones to start. What conservation relocation is, is that it purposely moves and releases different types of  plants, animals, or fungi into the wild in order to save them from going extinct. Due to Richard Henry’s translocation experiment with birds led to an increasing amount of conversational translocation which ultimately helped to increase and gained the reintroduction of eminent species. This indicates the species to strengthen and broaden their activities making their population grow.

On the flip side, many studies show that conversational translocation can result in the species becoming overwhelmed and stressed. Having the animal being captured, transported and relocated into an area that has never been seen before or are not comfortable with can put a lot of stress on a wild animal. This stress can lead to a variety of major changes consisting of biological, physiological and behavioral changes. It can also lead to the animal having a hard time hunting and just completely cut out eating. It also can affect their relationships with the others in their population. Since animals depend on each other when it comes to hunting and protection, translocation can potentially hinder their routine of these sorts. 

Zoos use a variety of approaches to halt the extinction of species that cannot thrive in their natural environments. Captive breeding, in which animals are bred in restricted areas like farms, zoos, and aquariums outside of their natural environment, is a popular strategy. The expansion of the population to the point where it can be controlled, becomes stable, or where the species is in good health is the objective of captive breeding. To long-term maintain genetic diversity, zoos have relied on explicit pedigrees. The majority of animals raised in captivity are unable to return to their natural habitats, but it is not impossible. In some instances, animals have the strength to go back into the wild and continue living their lives as if they had never left.

However, while captive breeding can help different populations, not everyone follows that criteria. Their priority is to provide entertainment for visitors with baby animals. Their intentions were never to help the species, instead to help the zoos get more profits. Doing this the baby animals are never going to be able to see the wild and live out their life without being held in captivity. Even if they do get a chance, the zoos never prepare the animals enough for them to survive in the wild. Not only could the chances of the offspring being let out in the wild be slim to none, there are also side effects that can be caused by captive breeding. Example being inbreeding. Inbreeding is characterized by lower rates of growth and reproduction, higher mortality rates, and the prevalence of hereditary abnormalities. This isn’t a way that animals should be living their lives, they should be out in the wild. 

In addition to the fact that captive breeding assistance develops the species populace, there are a ton of advantages that accompany it. For instance, it could assist in educating people about the various animals and the environments in which they live, which can potentially generate funds for shelters and research. Instruction and public mindfulness is essential to aiding jeopardized creatures since we can figure out how to safeguard them and fund-raise towards reserves so more examination should be possible. By allowing children to learn about, become interested in, and appreciate wildlife, zoos and aquariums contribute significantly to public awareness. The majority of zoos and aquariums have information about each species that tells where their habitats are, what they eat, how long they live, and other details. People gain knowledge of their local and global environments by seeing this information on display. This may assist citizens in realizing that they must preserve and clean the environment around them in order for animals to live in safer areas. As a result, this may be able to maintain the animal’s population.

Zoos over all strip not only endangered species, but all animals from their natural habitat and hold them in captivity with little to no knowledge of what the outside world looks like. Instead they are behind bars used for entertainment. Animals shouldn’t live like that, they should be out running in the wild and fend for themselves. Animals are going to die, it’s inevitable. But it’s the circle of life.  Us humans shouldn’t try to take that away from them. Baby animals that are born in captivity will never fully learn how to fend for themselves if for the slight chance that they will be let out in the wild. Zoos are actually hindering the chances of populations to grow. Animals will naturally grow their population in the wild, we shouldn’t force them to produce, especially when they are held captive and scared. 

Click to access Wildlife-Translocation-WDM-Technical-Series.pdf

https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/keeping-wild-animals-captivity-not-conservation-heres-why

Why Are Zoos Bad? Why Animals Should not be Kept in Zoos?

Posted in DogLover, Portfolio DogLover, Rebuttal Argument | Leave a comment