HSB4U Debate and Discussion Journals

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Debate and Discussion Journals Zoe Gilligan Central Technical School HSB4U Ms. Tharani January 23, 2017

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE DEBATE (October 6th) In this presentation, many real-life cases were presented through videos of studies in favor of and against the correlation between violent video-games and violence in real life.

One video showcased an observation-based study that set out to prove violent video-games actually being great therapy and not the raison-d’ȇtre for violent acts committed in today’s day and age. The subject of this study played violent video-games for several hours after work everyday, and continued to play for long hours on weekends with friends. The psychologists said that the subject had a higher aggression rate than the average person, but since video-games acted as an outlet, his aggressive demeanor often decompressed post-playing, and thus he was less likely to lash out in anger.

On the contrary side, other videos argued that there is a connection between the frequent outbreaks of violence which unfortunately are so common today, and the violent video-games which also are very common. They said it is not normal for humans to, well, enjoy ‘killing people’, even if only virtually. These games get your adrenaline pumping and make your body physically go through various states that only normally happen in intense, high-scale situations, which obviously isn’t very healthy always to experience every time you pick up the game console. Also, these games can act as triggers for violent behavior. Even if players aren’t physically affected by physical rushes, the fact that violent video-games have such a widespread presence in our society just normalizes their concepts (i.e. most number of kills and hurting people a lot means you’re the best...a winner) and makes their messages acceptable.

I do not believe that violent video-games, at the cores of their existences, are evil and induce nefarious acts. However, I do believe that they can trigger pre-existing violent feelings and

tendencies, and that they do in fact normalize such outrageous violence in what they try to market as ‘benign’ ways, since video-games only are virtual. I personally never have played many video-games in all my life with which to begin, so it blows my mind how all different kinds of people actually enjoy always staring at a screen (and killing people on this screen, at that). I think they should continue to use video-games as outlets for those in need, but there definitely should be tighter restrictions (i.e. rated R games), difficulty in accessibility, and greater emphasis on these games being fiction and not incentive to normalize and apply them to everyday life.

!

FREE SPEECH / CENSORSHIP DEBATE (October 14th // MINE) A thought is a hard thing to control.

I did my debate on this topic with Louis when we both still were in the same class with Mr. Waldie. Since he and I share many common interests and similarities, it was a no-brainer to decide on this topic for our debate.

After doing extensive research into Western world countries' censorship policies versus those of developing countries, I'm definitely grateful to belong to the former. My mother, being a refugee from a developing country, always has made sure to expose me to the almost non-existent free speech policies and suffocating censorship laws of those countries, so I may realize the weight of my privilege as a first-world child. Delving deeper into this topic’s reach around the world has furthered opened my eyes to the mistreatment and silencing of millions of voices and people everywhere, simply for being deviant. I speak from an ethnocentric point of view, I know, but I always will see this silencing as an ongoing criminal and unjust tragedy.

For our presentation, we decided to format it in a “who, what, where, when, why, how/ background” template, so as to explain many different free speech and censorship laws in the most cogent way we could, since they are quite overwhelming and tricky at first glance.

For ‘what’, we defined free speech and censorship, and showed an informational video about North America’s general standpoint on the two. For ‘who’, we discussed exactly who these laws affect, ‘why’ tackled pros and cons of free speech and censorship, ‘where’ gave stats on journalists and other such ‘free-thinkers’ who’ve been silenced in places like North Korea, China, and Eritrea (while also mentioning that the Western world is not innocent in these affairs as well), ‘when’ gave a bit of a historical context to the first free speech and censorship laws we know (i.e. Democratic Athens versus a Spartan state), and ‘how/background’ mainly discussed the Enlightenment, John Locke, Voltaire, and how their writings of free speech have affected our world as we know it today.

We also shared positive and negative case studies (protection versus punishment), as well as examples of democracies and totalitarian and communist societies. From all of our research, we found that all roads lead back to authority—whether or not people could question authority or not, which is an extreme breach and violation of social protocol, norms, and etiquette in many developing countries.

Perhaps it is because I also currently am in a philosophy class, but I vehemently believe in the right to question. People might say that nothing good comes from questioning, but that is not their decision to make on behalf of a whole community, demographic, and society of people. If we do not question ourselves, our leaders, our world, we never will deviate from the norm and thus no progression ever will be made. How else are we supposed to make positive improvement

if we are pigeon-holed into believing in a false perfection in the first place? I’m beyond thankful for all the freedoms I have today, but I still seek more because...I have the freedom to do so.

Because I have the freedom to question why there still remains a great disparity in the treatment of all women to that of men.

And I love that anyone and everyone in our part of the world has the freedom also to believe in questions and causes, to fight for them, to disagree with them, to fight against them.

If you do not hurt anyone, I think you should be able to do whatever you want—whatever makes you happy. Again, I know I say this from my seat of privilege, but this presentation really has motivated me to work hard towards helping other people do whatever they want and express themselves as they please!

Sharing is caring and I happily will share my little seat with as many people as I can.

!

LEGALIZATION OF WEED (October 28th) There are many perspectives and aspects which must be taken into consideration concerning the legalization of marijuana. As an American, I’ve personally seen the likes of recently-legalizedrecreational-marijuana states like Colorado and Oregon (now California too) always all over my television and news outlets. There have been many benefits these states have reaped from the legalization, such as economic spur and tourist-incentive, but there also have been many downfalls as well. Impaired driving is an even bigger worry than ever, as is a potential increase in crime. They may not seem to be at the forefront of media headlines right now, since it is too soon, but it will be easier to tell in time whether they are potent or not.

These states are examples of recreational use of marijuana both being not deviant and not criminal. Before California legalized weed, it was not seen as deviant to smoke but it still was ‘criminal’. There are many other places, such as Seattle and Vancouver, that do not see weed as deviant, but in the eyes of the law it still is seen as criminal. Of course, there also are several other places that see weed as both deviant and criminal.

This is a tricky topic which I personally think individual states/provinces should tackle—not necessarily the federal government. For example, I’m sure Vancouver residents will feel a lot differently about its legalization, as opposed to small-town people from Alberta. So, I think citizens of each province should vote for whether or not they personally want marijuana as a legal substance in their communities, though I’m not sure how well this would fare.

The presenters went over the different types of marijuana, dispensary businesses, current marijuana laws all over the continent, pros and cons, medical marijuana, and videos about Colorado in their presentation. I believe that people will smoke weed recreationally and seriously

and however they want, regardless of any laws. Weed is everywhere, even though it is illegal.

(Medical marijuana is great! Especially for cancer patients.) However, I suppose I myself would vote to legalize marijuana, had I the option, because I do think we really need to cut off ties with the illegal drug industry. It’s terrifying and sad to think about all the people who go missing and have to die in the countries that produce the weed rolled into the joints my peers smoke at lunch.

Besides, supporting local always is a great thing to do!

ABORTION DEBATE (November 17) Sometimes it baffles my mind that even in the 21st century there's still a 'debate' surrounding abortion. Abortions have been happening since the beginning of civilization. Why would they ‘stop’ now? Making them a deviant and criminal act only will cause more deaths and illegal, unsanitary clinics to open. With all the technology and progress we’ve made today, we cannot go back to the not too long ago era of self-abortions by hanger. It would be a disgrace and a testament to the treatment of women in modern society.

The points presented in this debate were typical right-winger and lefty favorites. For the former, abortion is murder and someone ought to care for and speak up for that life (hence ‘pro-life’ label). The latter argues that these fetuses are not truly and legally persons, and that women deserve the right and choice to do as they please with their own bodies (hence ‘pro-choice’ label). The presentation went back and forth, with pro-life sentiments suggesting that there always are other options and resources for women, such as adoption, which was countered by pro-choice arguments, saying that these options and resources always aren’t available to women and that they shouldn’t be pressured into using them just for the satisfaction and comfort of others.

If it doesn’t personally impact someone in a negative way, what is so wrong with having abortion as an option, a choice? One in which you do not have to participate? You don’t have to get an abortion or want one in order to support having the choice of it. Women’s health care and reproductive rights are human rights. What women choose to do with their bodies, such as use of birth control and other contraceptives, is no one’s business but their own. Government and other federal institutions should not dictate what each woman will decide to do with her body, but they

should support it. There already are so many restrictive laws and expenses in place that make seeking abortions, contraceptives, and other reproductive-related health concerns extremely difficult and costly. Also, most women don’t participate in intercourse with the hopes of having an abortion. No woman enjoys having an abortion.

During the debate, what struck me as odd and extremely uncomfortable (as well as angering, quite frankly) was that while virtually every single identifying-female in the room agreed that women ought to have the choice for an abortion, whether they decide to have one in their lifetime or not, many of the identifying-males ardently were against the right to an unconditional choice. Many of them said, “Only under certain circumstances, like rape and incest.” It’s frightening and disgusting to know that many believe in women only having a right to their bodies after they’ve been violated, assaulted, raped, and abused.

It was a saddening reality check to see how quick many of the men in the room were to assert their dominance over what I deem is best for my own body, and so ready to villainize those of us who simply want the freedom to our bodies for which we’ve fought so long and barely are hanging on. However, it was comforting and reassuring to know that all of the other women in the room and I were united in our cause. It’s laughable how those who cannot physically bear children think they ought to have a greater say in this than those who actually can physically bear children. What’s sad, though, is how their voices are prioritized over ours. This unfortunate ingroup and out-group case can also be felt in the federal levels.

Though I hope that I never find myself in a predicament where abortion is my last option, I always will be supporting and fighting for my sisters who need and deserve this choice.

!

ANIMAL TESTING (November 25th) Perhaps I am biased in saying this, being a pescetarian, but I think that animal testing— particularly for cosmetic purposes—is cruel and unfair, as well as unnecessary.

Julia, who presented a very informative and well-rounded presentation on this topic, made sure to present unbiased pros and cons for each side of the debate. For example, a big pro to animal testing was cures for illnesses. Had animals not been victim to scientific experimentation, we probably still would be victim to illnesses like polio today. The pro side treats it as a matter of rather them than us.

Many experimenters continue down this path of shameless torture onto animals in the name of science. Since animals are not granted the same legal rights as humans, there aren't many stipulations and concerns around animal cruelty. However, as supposedly moral and ethical beings, we should not need it written down in legal documents in order for us to know to do the right thing.

As technology has evolved, so have experimentation on animals. Scientists abuse animals to the point of near death in order to induce things like human cell-based depression and brain cancer, which just aren't normal and natural for animals like rabbits and rats to have. These animals are burned, isolated, shocked, brain-damaged, addicted to drugs, poisoned, starved, forcibly restrained, and eventually either die from their dire circumstances or are brutally killed. Their present-day enslavement is not fruitful for human benefit anymore. It is silly to try and test cures for human cancers on animals like rats and guinea pigs when the medicines affect them both differently. If these cures already have different effects on these two animal alone, they most obviously are going to affect humans very differently as well.

Perhaps what saddens me the most about animal cruelty is that a large part of it occurs in the name of beauty. MAC, which currently is one of the biggest makeup companies in the market, heavily tests on animals in order to produce their products. This is just frustrating and sad since there are so many other popular—and of better quality—makeup companies that do not test on animals at all. For instance, my Hourglass primer is cruelty-free, and all of Hourglass’ products proudly say, “PRODUCT NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS.” My foundation, which is from Cover FX, is hypoallergenic and vegan. All of the eye makeup and soaps I use are cruelty-free as well.

The best part is that most of my makeup is the same price as MAC makeup, with some of it actually being cheaper than MAC. So, there really isn’t an excuse—other than being a lazy jerk —for not ditching cosmetics tested on animals. It’s 2017. It’s time to take action and use the technology we’ve developed to safely create sustainable, secure products and work towards cures for illnesses through cruelty-free experiments. All of these are possible, if only people decide to deviate from the comfort and norm of animal abuse.

! #BLACKLIVESMATTER (December 9th) I think the most important thing which people are missing about the #blacklivesmatter movement is the need for acknowledgement—not acknowledgement of the black community as criminals and thugs, but as real, vulnerable humans with feelings and fears too. The fact that people are threatened by the validation and worth of black people’s lives is…horrible. As a woman, I understand the fear for safety in today’s day and age. However, I could not imagine what my black peers—both men and women—feel in 2016. To be scared for your life as you walk out the

door everyday, wondering if you’ll make it back home tonight or if your parents will ever see you alive again, is no way to live.

One of my closest friends, Christel, is a New Yorker. A rich one, at that. She and her family are French African-Americans who live in a high-rise on Central Park West and pay taxes in one of the highest brackets in the country. Firstly, I’d like to state how unfair and unfortunate it is that the media does not portray more blacks like Christel’s family, since they’re even doing better than many whites I know. Secondly, even though they are extremely privileged, the negative media portrayals of blacks have affected the lives of her and her siblings. Once, she and her brother were going for a walk down Park Avenue, but it was a bit windy so he had his hood up and his hands in his pocket. Essentially, people thought that he either robbed a store or was going to rob someone—that he was a boy from the wrong side of town. It’s ridiculous, really, since they’re all neighbors and are part of the same tax brackets. In fact, this was the first time it ever had happened to them in New York (and luckily the last). Sentiments like this really only arose at the peak of #blacklivesmatter.

People blame #blacklivesmatter for many anti-establishment criminal activity, and yes, people may commit bad deeds under the name of #blacklivesmatter. They ought to be held responsible for their actions, but so should those who commit just as egregious acts against blacks. Those bad deeds do not mean that the movement itself is corrupt or that black lives mattering is wrong.

The movement began with one woman trying to reinforce the importance and worth of black lives in the media, and it remains as a reminder to us, with more privilege, that it is our job to be active for the justice of black lives.

!

REVERSE-RACISM (December 16th) Being biracial, I’ve always been exposed both to real and ‘phony’ racism. By phony, I mean that some of my white relatives think they too can be ‘victims’ of institutionalized oppression because one black person tried to skip ahead of them in line. Yes, that is rude. Yes, that person might—or might not—have done it because my relatives are white. But no, that is not racism.

White people can be subject to racial-prejudice, but ultimately that is benign because it does not affect them and their children on social, political, economic, and sexual levels. Fundamentally, the average white person can not suffer greatly in a system their forebears built specifically for them. Of course there are intersections, such as poverty, disabilities, sexualities, and mental illnesses, but aid and sympathy are readily available in a thousand more ways than they can be to people of color.

Something of the presentation that greatly frustrated me was the video about ‘reverse racism’ in Australia. (The presentation itself did not frustrate me—it literally just was the video itself.) The white men-politicians were complaining about brown people, Asians, Muslims, and other ‘nonAustralians’ taking all of their jobs. An example they used was how the ‘Australian way of life’ was being sabotaged because when walking into a local McDonalds, you’d find no ‘Australians’ working there. However, I’d like to counter their points with asking exactly how many of their Australians—as if the workers aren’t Australian too?—want to work those jobs and how many Australians are there with well-paying careers? How many of them get to work in skyscrapers with a stable income that is suitable enough for a good living-quality? Their racist ideology was rich, coming from a whole establishment of upper-class whites who historically oppressed and exploited those who were not like them, such as the Aboriginals.

All in all, I thought Angelina and Wency did really well in presenting both sides of the case, and though there was not much debate, I’m glad that the classes’ consensus was that reverse-racism does not exist.

!

GENTRIFICATION (January 13th) Lemme’s presentation on gentrification by far was one of my favorites from the whole semester.

I thought it was interesting and cool that she incorporated how gentrification affects the very city in which we live—the neighborhoods to which our friends and peers belong, and even the neighborhoods into which some of us might have or may move.

The definition of gentrification is, “a process of renovation and revitalization of deteriorated urban neighborhoods by means of influx of more affluent residents, which results in increased property values and the displacing of lower-income families and small businesses.”

When Michaela Allen, a youth social worker typically working in gentrified areas, came in to speak to our glass as Lemme’s guest speaker, she particularly focused on the displacement of families and their small businesses in neighborhoods in which she works. She herself lived in public housing and once was considered a ‘youth at risk’, so her personal experiences gave a greater insight into the aftermath of displacement and the stigma that comes along with it.

These people, whose families have lived in their neighborhoods for generations, go from living in their own houses one day to unwillingly living in public housing. Many times, this does not even fully go through, and they either have to find other low-income areas into which they can quickly move or another neighborhood for public housing, else they be left only with the streets

to raise their kids. The stigma from this sub-culture of displacement and ‘at risk’ families can also, though not always, be just as rotten as being evicted.

As with any topic, there are pros to gentrification. Gentrifying a neighborhood can mean that it’s now safer, and the local economy is stimulated, since chains like Starbucks and Whole Foods always want to be where the hip happenings are. Previous tenants now will have more money from the buying of their property, which is high in value. Also, gentrification can promote desegregation in some cases, allowing a safe community in which all walks of life may peacefully cohabit together.

As with any topic, however, there are cons. Gentrification is classist and does not ‘solve’ poverty, but further perpetuates it. Although it can clean up certain neighborhoods and their crime rates, gentrification actually is more likely induce crime and violence than prevent them. As I said during the debate, money isn’t always the only thing that matters to these people, so by carrying on this endless cycle of gentrification, many people become unhappy, though not all necessarily do. They lose their livelihoods, self-actualization, and love and belonging. Gentrified neighborhoods and their new tenants never will have what the previous owners had with their cultural communities because such kinship is not something that money can buy or re-create.

Money can’t buy everything, and though it may buy a ‘better’ life for these displaced families, it may not necessarily buy them happiness.

All in all, I hope that future investors and others who buy, renovate, revitalize, and re-sell these properties will work closely with the original residents of those neighborhoods, so that everyone may come to a compromise from which they all benefit and with which they all will be as content as the situation will allow.

I learned a lot from these debates, and though my mere existence often was disparaged, denigrated, and disrespected, I think I’ll quite miss these weekly discussions. Thanks for everything Ms. Tharani! I know you didn’t get to teach me for long, but I’m still glad that you did get to teach me, regardless of the inconvenient timing. Competitive people can be pretty tolerable, I guess. Thanks again!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !