Debate on AT

Opening remark- Affirmative
Ladies and gentlemen did you know that in one year millions of animals die from animal testing’s. Out of those millions, 65,000 are dogs. All these animals die in distress, and not only distress but they also die suffering. Most of what the animals experience is torture; this leads to the animals suffering until they die. Animal testing’s on animals should clearly be banned. First of all, it’s unethical. Unethical means that people are doing things that most people think is wrong to do, that a normal moral person would think wrong to do. Secondly it’s teaching school kids that it’s ok to test on animals if it enhances education, but hurting an innocent animal is wrong. Education should foster compassion and respect for life. It has also been noted that children who treat animals with violence could unconsciously start to be violent towards humans too. Thirdly, enough testing’s have been done in the past that we can use that information for future references. Also instead of animal testing’s helping humans, more and more professionals think that animal testing might be delaying the development, because it could provide inaccurate and mistaken information. And don’t forget that human beings and animals are physically different, and could react differently towards medicine since they have different metabolisms. In some countries many scientist and doctors are starting to act against animal testing. So is it really worth making the innocent animals suffer? Imagine if it was your pet suffering.

http://www.java-animal.org/eng/Summary2.html



Second speaker for affirmative side
(Summarizes argument presented so far for BOTH sides, and tries to explain superior of their own side. Must answer any questions raised but the negative side. Finally, should present the strongest point for the affirmative with appropriate supporting evidence.)

We are on the affirmative side, meaning that we think that animal testing should be banned. So, as we said before animal testing is wrong for many different reasons. When you said….

Might say: It enhances education
It’s wrong to take away a life, its teaching kids that it is ok to kill an animal for the good of education, but it’s not right to hurt an innocent animal just to see what happens. Like I said before that most children who treat animals with violence could unconsciously start to be violent towards humans too.

Might say: It is necessary to human life
Human beings and animals are physically different; they react differently to the drugs because of their metabolism. So a drug that works on humans might not necessarily work on humans. Although the animals may be of the same species, the data obtained by animal testing may differ by 10 times depending on the type of lifestyle, and environment they are in. Also instead of animal testing’s helping humans, more and more professionals think that animal testing might be delaying the development, because it could provide inaccurate and mistaken information. So instead of animal testing really helping humans, it’s causing the process to be longer. Also in the process of saving one human life, you may be killing a hundred animals.

Might say: Humans are superior, they have sentient thoughts
But animals still experience pain and fear, and the animals are suffering from the snide-effects of the drugs. And even though we are superior and can make in depth decisions this does not mean that we have the right to mess with their species. Whoever said that we had the right to start testing it on other species? It’s mean and it’s cruel.

Might say: Killing plants is the same as killing animals and that’s still happening
Let me ask you this. Do the trees suffer? Are the trees experimented on? Trees don’t have a memory and don’t feel pain. Even though they are alive, this does not mean that you can compare trees to animals! Also planting trees is a lot easier than reproducing.

Might say: There is no other alternative
In the past there was no other alternative, but today we have made enough tests and research for future references. And, like I said before, humans and animals react differently to the drugs.

….These are some reasons that I think are reasonable to why animal testing should be banned.



Closing statement- affirmative side
So, as we said before animal testing is wrong for many different reasons. Some of the reasons we pointed out before were: it’s unethical making animals suffer with the side-effects; its teaching school kids that it’s ok to do tests on animals if it enhances education, but we have no right making an animal suffer just to see what happens. Education should foster respect for life. It is necessary for human life, but since animals and humans may experience the drugs differently, it may not necessarily work on humans. Making humans suffer too, since it prolongs the research. And finally it is not the only alternative. Many tests have been done in the past, and with that data we can use it for future references. So we don’t have to keep testing to see if they work on animals. We already know if a drug works or not. So we overall think that animal testing should be banned. Thank you.






Second speaker for Negative side
(Summarizes argument presented so far for BOTH sides, and tries to explain superior of their own side. Must answer any questions raised but the negative side. Finally, should present the strongest point for the affirmative with appropriate supporting evidence.)


We are on negative side, meaning that we think that animal testing should not be banned. So, as we said before animal testing brings positive reactions for many different reasons. When you said….

Might say: The animal may in the long run be extinct
This can’t happen because rodents can breed year-round and usually have up to 50 babies at a time. Also scientists won’t experiment on soon to be extinct animals, and nowadays only the necessary amount of animals should be used. Animal testing has been going on for a long time, and they aren’t extinct yet. Not even close.

Might say: The animal feels pain
But nowadays the pain or distress that the animals experience is minimized. And they won’t remember the pain, so they won’t suffer from remembering how it felt like when it hurt. They only feel what’s happening at the time.

Might say: You’re taking away an innocent life
But rodents life expectancies are about 3-5 years, and the animals are contributing to humans, who can live up to 80-90 years! So even though we are taking away an innocent life, we are saving many more innocent lives in the long run. With the right cure it could end or prevent a lot of diseases and a lot of suffering.

Might say: The animals suffer a lot
Or It’s not necessary for human life
Let me ask you this, would it be better that humans suffer? Without animal testing research on medicine cures could be pro-longed. Patience’s and their families will suffer even more from waiting for the cure. The patience might even die. And if the patience does die, it is making more humans suffer for their loss. When animals die in testing’s, no one suffers from their death except the animals themselves.

Might say: Humans aren’t superior
Yes humans are superior, we have the ability to make in depth decisions, have long term feelings and have sentient thoughts, which is like life long memories. We aren’t dependant on animals, they are dependent on us. Where would the rodents get their food if it weren’t for us? All in all, humans are superior to animals.

Might say: Killing animals isn’t ethical
But if killing animals isn’t ethical then cutting down trees isn’t ethical either. (?)

Might say: Education isn’t a reason
But if we are the only species with sentient thoughts, and want to save lives, then why not move forward in life?

Might say: Animal life = Human life
Rodents have a shorter and less productive life; they can live up to 3-5 years, can breed all year long and produce up to 50 babies at a time. Compared to a human life who can live up to 80-90 years, has the opportunity to do something productive, can’t reproduce all the time, and usually have only one baby at a time. Why shouldn’t we test on animals? An animal life does not equal a human life, it’s not even close.

Might say: There are other alternative
New diseases are developing all the time, and even though we have data from the past, we still have to see if the new medicines work, or if combining two different medicines will work. If we don’t test on animals, the research will be prolonged, many people will die, and innocent people will suffer just because they got unlucky and got a disease. There is no other alternative.

Closing statement- Negative side
So, as we said before animal testing should not be banned for many different reasons. Some of the reasons we pointed out before were: it’s necessary for human life, less people die, and less people have to suffer. It enhances education; it tells us that these chemicals could save thousands of lives. The animals won’t remember the pain, it will just suffer in the moment, while humans remember the pain, and also they suffer when someone close to them dies. Also the pain and distress has been minimized. If humans have the chance to save millions of lives in the future, but would have to kill a few animals in the process, why shouldn’t we? Wouldn’t you do it for the better? Thanks.

Population Project Work Plan for the Week

I was sick for most of the week, so I couldn't do a Population Project Work Plan for the Week.

Analysing Globalization Picture

What are the main visual elements?
In the picture there is a man sting in an armchair holding a newspaper and wearing suit with a tie, and without the blazer. Next to the man there is a dog looking a bit shocked lying next to the man. Then a next to the man’s other side a little further away is a little girl looking mad. The man is saying “No you may NOT outsource your homework to India.” The man is probably the girl’s dad.

What issue is this cartoon about?
The issue is that the girl wants to outsource her homework to India, meaning that she wants get information from India. Her dad is saying no, meaning that she has to do it herself.

What is the cartoonist’s opinion on this issue?
I think that the cartoonist doesn’t like outsourcing, or globalization.

What evidence in the cartoon supports your opinion on how the cartoonist feels?
Because in the picture, he is saying no to outsourcing.

How does this cartoon relate to our study of globalization?
Globalization is making the world “flat”, and outsourcing is one of the ten flattners why the world is flat.

What other techniques could the cartoonist have used to make this cartoon more persuasive?
Maybe to show that the cartoonist really didn’t like outsourcing and globalization, the father could look a bit mad or annoyed while saying “No you may NOT outsource your homework to India”.


Image from: www.sandiegohomeblog.com

Population Project Recap

The three most valuable things I learned from UBD (or Population Project) was:

• How to write a research paper. Even though we learned with the Africa research paper, I think that this time I focused more on it and worked harder on it this time, I learned more. This is a very good skill to have in the future, in high school and college. Now if I get an essay in high school I would know how to approach it, and how to write it.
  

• I learned that it's a symbiotic relationship between educational levels and economic growth. This is useful to know for future references. And could be a topic I might study in the future, which is useful to know.

• Thirdly I learned how to take data and write about it. Before I would just look at the data and wouldn't be sure what to write. But now, I learned how to look at data and apply it to a text. This is also good to know how to do for future essays in high school and college.
  

Sameness & Equality

Precise use of language is an important theme in The Giver. Why does Lois Lowry purposefully use the word ‘sameness’ instead of ‘equality’? Explain what the difference is in the meaning of the words. Then using the Giver and Animal Farm cite examples of how we have seen each word used. Which author uses language more precisely?

The difference between sameness and equality is that sameness is when everyone gets the same things and they do the same things. At dictionary.com it says “the state or quality of being the same; identity; uniformity.” Equality on the other hand is when everyone is treated the same way. According to dictionary.com equality is used when talking about quantity, rank or ability.

In “The Giver” everyone had the same things, and everyone did the almost then same things everyday. It was a pattern without real feelings, since they could feel some small feelings. But nothing big and complicated like love or pain. Equality on the other hand is when everyone is treated the same, but they might not do the same things everyday or the same things as everyone else.

The giver feedback

The Giver in many ways is a “coming of age” story, in which we witness Jonas’ growing up. To begin our discussion of The Giver please address the following three questions in your blog using “good” paragraphs.

1. When does one become an adult?
2. What does it mean to be an adult?
3. At what age are people no longer useful to society?

Becoming an adult is a very big step. When becoming an adult you have many responsibility and independence. If you are mature enough to take responsibility for your actions, and be independent and not rely on anyone else all the time. To be an adult means to support yourself and be able to make the right decisions for the future and yourself. You should be responsible enough to take care of yourself, and if you wish to start a family, you should be able to take care of them too.

I think that everyone is useful all the time in the society. The old people can still do something useful in the society in the giver. And the young kids are the future generation who will one day take care of the world. But I don't think anyone is useless to society. They can still help in their way. Wether it is mantaly helping (like thinkig of the ideas of the future) or physically helping (like doing the actual building and stuff). I mean some old people are still very sharp but they are so old. They can still help with their ideas for a better future.

Blogs and parents

Please analyze the above cartoon and post your ideas to your BLOG. As part of your analysis please address the following questions:

1. What are the main visual elements?
2. What issue is this cartoon about?
3. What is the cartoonist’s opinion on this issue?
4. What evidence in the cartoon supports your opinion on how the cartoonist feels?
5. Why is this cartoon ironic?
6. What other techniques could the cartoonist have used to make this cartoon more persuasive?

There is a family eating dinner in their kitchen. The family consists of a mum, a dad and a little kid. They all look unhappy. The kid has a football head, while the parents have long heads (could the kid be adopted?)

I think that the issue is that the parents don’t care. I mean, if the kid tells them, they could choose not to listen. But if they have to read it, it would be really hard to pretend to read it, and then they have to give feedback on it. Or, that parents are getting very lazy nowadays. And they can’t be bothered to read their kid’s own work.

I think that the cartoonist thinks that parents have become lazier and more careless. And that they don’t really want to listen to their kid’s day. This is because they all look sad and bored. And also, the text under the picture is “Well, yes, we could read your blog…or you could just tell us about it” saying that the parents can’t be bothered to read the blog.

I think that the picture is ironic because the kid is asking his parents to read the blog, and the parents can’t be bothered to read it. But in real life, we have our own blogs, and most of us can’t be bothered to tell our parents about our blog.

The parents could be sitting on a sofa and watching T.V. while the kid is standing in the doorway, looking sad. Or the parents could look bigger, to show that they are lazy. Or both!