Debate Opening Statement

My debate topic is Should Parents Be Able To Manipulate Their Children’s DNA.


When any living organism decides to produce offspring, a mixture of both parents DNA are given to the offspring, allowing them to gain a unique set of characteristics not everyone are capable of having. In recent studies, scientist have come up with an idea to manipulate, or change, unborn babies DNA. This method is called Genetic Engineering (GE). Changing a child’s DNA seems unmoral and unreasonably cruel. It is unfair to that child that he or she did not have a choice in the way they wanted to look.
If the GE fails, and diseases are transmitted to the child, those mistakes cannot be fixed. It is, with great knowledge that trying to create traits of an human being by technology can be crucial if not done properly. The health of the child may be risky, dangerous, and damaging to the body and mind.
Already, scientist have proposed an idea of changing an unborn babies gender and eye color, which subtracts from the mystery of what he or she may look like if nothing has been genetically changed. The fun of seeing the outcome of what a baby appears to look like, would be ruined and weird in a robotic way. If every parent were to choose what their baby should look like, many children may look the same. Evolution would be changed. The human race would be one race ethnically instead of plenty. In other words, I believe choosing DNA will decrease human diversity.
I think that this method messes with the work of mother nature--allows man to, once again, control yet another thing, but this time it’s controlling the appearance of another human being. A scientist who studies this method since 2001, Joao Pedro de Magalhaes, stated in one of his long essays about Genetic Engineering: “To incorporate in the genome genes that can offer protection during cryopreservation for long space trips.” This study goes beyond the fact that DNA can be changed. it will get to that odd, freaky point where scientist create super humans.
“Assuming the procedure is safe, I see no reason to stop someone from not only eliminating genetic errors but improving his/her children from an aesthetic point a view.”
“. Besides the obvious
ENDING: I believe that every person has a right to his or her own individuality.life-extension procedures, we might be able to turn ourselves more physically resistant in all sorts of manners. Making our skin and bones harder, making us stronger, improving our stamina, giving us super-intelligence, minimizing pain and overall optimizing our biochemistry.”

What Would Life Be Without Music?

sometimes i wonder what life would be without music. At first i thought that if we didnt have music then life would be boring or less entertaining. A music-less world is like taking a huge chunck of culture out of each race, religion, and background history (like the slaves who made music about their problems). Then i thought that if the human race werent introduced to music in the first place, that it may be normal for us not to have it. You never know what you're missing if it isnt introduced to our knowledge. Same goes for the way we know music to be. Since we (mankind), already know what music is we are used to it and it is normal to us.
            But if we think about a world devoid of music, it is a world devoid of possible entertainment. Take movies for example. In a scary movie, the creepish music that always indicates something bad will happen, adds to the intensity of the movie and how we as people are feeling about the movie. It keeps us on our toes to know that the music means something will happen. Without the music, there would be unexpected surprises that may be tiring to the watchers after a while. Music in movies gives the watchers a sense of how to feel in any genre; Romance movies may have something soft that touches the audience when something touchy in the movie is happening. In action movies, the high paced thrilling music paces the watchers to move at the same speed of what action is taking place. So movies without music leaves the people watching without feeling many of the stressed emotions of the film. Plus one of my favorite kind of movies, musicals, would not exist.
            If you were asked what do most people do while driving in a car, what would you say? Would you say "pay attention to the road," "talk on bluetooth," " talk to the people that may be in the car at the time being,?" Surley what may come to a person's mind is to listen to music. Think of a long drive from Oakland to L.A. About six to seven hours. You are driving alone, left your phone at home, and there is no such thing as music. That sounds boring just at the thought of doing nothing in the car, hearing nothing but motors of other cars on the road. Now at least with music, one can entertain his or herself by singing along to the tunes recognized. Without music in cars, cars would be less intresting, except for the fact one doesnt have to walk or take dirty public transit, and the fact that they are much faster than doing the two.
          Plus what about the activities that work by having music.What about Halftimes, parties, Broadway, Church,Disney movies (most include songs). What about karaoke, musical chairs. They wouldnt exsist. The shows on Television that include singing or dancing; American Idol, Dance Your Ass Off, Dancing with the Stars, Don't Forget Those Lyrics, America's Best Dance Crew. All the shows that are so popular now would not exsist. We would watch sitcoms and reality t.v shows about love, and who wants to date a millionaire (you get the point) --all without music. No ipods, itunes, i-anything. Its screams boredom.
         One of the things that i listed up above that would suck without music is--drumroll please, Church. Imagine sitting in a place for hours and all you hear is talking, talking, talking. Yes, Church isn't supposed to be about the music, but the inspiration of the words spoken, and some churches may not have music. But i cannot for the life of me sit somewhere, other than school, and only hear talking, no music. 
         So a life so dull is the equivalent of a life without music. I guess I answered my own question. =]

FaceBook Respond Post

Response Post To Ruby Rew’s Blog: Facebook Is Annoying

I agree to the fact that facebook is annoying. I don’t go on facebook much but from what I see and hear, FB or facebook is highly addictive. I mean FB is a great way to stay in touch with those people who live further away or who don’t have the time to hang out, or whatever the case may be. I think that FB is like a drug to some people like my cousin for example. Her life at the time being is to check facebook constantly. Just by seeing her on facebook 24/7 is annoying. I refuse to let the FB trend consume me into dedicating my life to checking it every other hour or half an hour. 

Another reason why I think that FB is annoying/irritating is because there is nothing to do on there. I don’t understand most of the apps. Like the poking and food fighting and pets. Whenever I get on facebook which is literally once every two months, I feel that all I’m doing is wasting time.  FB is also annoying because (i know this may sound weird) but because the backgrounds are so plain and simple. The one thing that I liked about Myspace is because they allowed people to personalize his or her profile. 

And like Ruby said, it becomes one main source of communication. Instead of calling someone, most people i know would go on FB just to say something that would take only seconds when speaking it. I find it somewhat funny how people go through all that trouble instead of just calling, with the exception of people in other states etc. For example, my cousin, who lives only down the street from me, always messages me on FB and tells me things that she could have said faster by calling me. 

So when people ask me why i don’t get on FB, I get annoyed because i feel that facebook isnt the main source of communication and It isn’t my life’s main goal, to constantly log into Facebook. That is why it is annoying to me.

Americans and Pronouncing T's as D's

Americans And Pronouncing T’s as D's

My older sister brought to my knowledge that people in America don’t pronounce their T’s in words like butter, panties, metal, bitter, button, better, and with names like Peter. instead, most Americans pronounce the T’s in words like these and replace them with D’s. Instead of butter, most tend to say budder. Instead of metal, medal. Bitter, bidder. Peter, Peder. What I want to know is why most Americans do it. Now that I pay attention to how people I speak to pronounce these things incorrectly, I wonder if they ever think about the correct way of pronouncing them. I also catch myself saying the D’s and quickly stress the T’s. Immediately the person i may have been speaking to laughs or exchanges a humorous expression, usually the side tipping of the head with the added furrowed brows. An explanation always follows close behind. 

In the well known adult comedy cartoon show, Family Guy, the main character Peter, is always up to no good, his name always being called. Peder never pronounced Peter like how it is spelled.  Not only does the cartoon characters say it wrong, the people who does the voices for the characters most likely does the same as well.

Last week my uncle came over and wanted to make some toast. After he toasts his bread, he likes to put butter while the bread is still hot, so the butter would melt into the bread perfectly and smoothly. He asked me as i walked into the kitchen, “Wheres the budder?” I again stopped to explain to yet another person what was faulty about saying D’s in words where T’s are formally placed. 

So in conclusion, not many people know that they, on a daily basis say words that have incorrect pronunciation. It’s something that i think people should be aware of or try to notice. I even caught the president, Barack Obama, saying D instead of T word, and didn’t seem like he noticed. Why is it that Americans don’t pronounce these things. Is it that it takes to long to pronounce all the way?