Recently, teenagers have begun to fall under many categories. Some teenagers can fall under the “frequent texters” label. Often times, I will see teenagers walking down the street, cell phone in hand, texting just as fast as they can. Texting has, in some ways, revolutionized America, in some ways it has caused problems, in some ways it causes health problems, and has an interesting history. As many as seventy four percent of mobile phone users as of 2007 have texting. It indicates the entrance of future technology.
Some people have noticed the good change that texting has brought upon the population. For those who fear awkward phone conversations, texting gives them relief. Open the phone, punch in a few words, and press send. Does your dog do random, cute things when the camera lies in a different room? No problem. Just whip out the cell phone and snap a quick picture and send a picture message to your friends. No camera required. Also, one can send a quick text message to a friend without worrying about bothering them. Texting can easily keep friends in touch and updated through this convenient form of communication. If a business man stands in a loud area, eats at a restaurant or waits in line at the post office, talking on phone can result in rudeness. He can send a quick message without disturbing others while acquiring his goal.
Along with everything else, texting can cause some issues. For one, studies have shown that texting has quickly diminished grammar use in the twenty-first century. Teens have created abbreviations such as “u” for “you” and “btw” for “by the way” for quicker messaging. After much usage, these abbreviations have caused a slow disintegration in today’s grammar. Forgotten periods, neglected capitalization, ignored commas, and atrocious spelling have become normal. Texting has not helped in these areas. As one can see, texting has its good effects, and it has its bad effects.
With more than an average of one hundred texts sent per day per teen, one has to wonder if texting causes health issues. Yes, in fact, it can cause health problems. Some teenagers suffer from sleep deprivation because of excessive texting. Also, excessive use of the cell phone or the computer will cause a teen to lose track of time and get less done in the day than normal. Long periods of separation from a teen’s cell phone can sometimes lead to anger, tension, and depression. Many people have awareness of the effect texting while driving can have. As they say, too much of something always causes problems.
Sent to the phone of Richard Jarvis, the first text message said “Merry Christmas”. Neil Papworth sent this message from a personal computer, and it arrived in December of 1992. Primarily invented for use by the hearing impaired, texting did not gain much popularity right away. Eventually, texting did gain much popularity. Today, many people have access to this popular technology. Slowly, texting has changed the way the world communicates.
Citizens in America today text much more than they once did. Slowly, the percentage of America’s population adds texting to their cell phones. This rise in texting causes some problems, but it also causes some good things. Texting may cause a rise in crashes, it may cause a rise of teenagers’ sleeping problems, or it may cause a rise in good social interaction. Who knows? Only time will reveal the kind of impact texting will have on the world.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Rebuttal
I wrote a paper rebutting an article that I found online. Underneath I have posted the link to the article that is rebutted. Warning: There is one crude statement in the article so I would advise parental permission before viewing it.
Evolution: It’s the law
October 13, 2011 by Doc Bradley
http://unlvrebelyell.com/2011/10/13/evolution-it%E2%80%99s-the-law/
My response:
Ever since the invention of the idea of Evolution, Creationists and Evolutionists have hotly debated these two ideas. Many fallacies fill this argument, the writer does not prove his points, and he firmly sets himself against the idea of creationism which the rebutting side believes as true. Obviously, the article supports the idea of evolution, but fallacies bubble to the surface, even to the untrained eye. No valid argument presents itself because of the fallacies present along with the many false-hoods. Some, well educated people believe in what this article says, but other, also well educated people believe otherwise. This author believes in the creation of the world by spontaneous generation.
Consequently, in this article, many fallacies present themselves. Ad populum fallacies and ad hominem fallacies show up. Briefly, an ad populum fallacy states that many people believe in an idea, therefore, it should accepted as true. If a debater uses the ad hominem fallacy, he attacks the person because of what he believes. In paragraph three, the writer says, “Evolution is now accepted as being true by the vast majority of the world’s educated population.” The writer actually commits two fallacies in saying that the vast majority of educated people accept the idea of evolution. When the writer says, “With the creation (pun intended) of the Scientific Law of Evolution we, as the educated majority, can finally end the debate that occupies our courts and schoolrooms about the origins of the species.” Scholars call the fallacy here an ad hominem fallacy. By saying that those who believe in Evolution have education, the writer implies that those who do not share in his beliefs cannot hold the label of educated. As a writer composes an opinion piece, he must avoid fallacies at all cost, because the commitment of a fallacy will cause his destruction.
Several examples in the chosen article lack proof for the points that the writer makes. Found in the eighth paragraph, the writer says a Scientific Theory should quell the debate between Creation and Evolution. Only if an idea has gone through abundant amounts of experimentation even after naming it a scientific theory can scientists consider it true. Dr. Jay L. Wile’s book, Exploring Creation with General Science, says, “A scientific law is a theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data”. At another point in the article, the writer labels creationism as non-verifiable. One may ask where the back-up information for this statement lies. In order for an argument to become valid, proof and back-up information must present itself.
God created this earth for his own purpose. He meditated and thought about creating this world, chance had nothing to do with it. If an archaeologist finds a watch in the rubble of his work zone, would he immediately conclude that the watch appeared by a bunch of different molecules coming together? Or would he decide that someone designed and put it there? Second Peter chapter three verse three to four says, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.” Evolutionists might say that one cannot prove the idea of Creationism, and that may ring true, but where can one find the firm evidence that proves Evolution? Both ideas involve faith. Intelligent people do now show fear in admitting that they believe in Creationism.
Creation scientists and evolutionists would admit that they look at the same evidence from a different point of view. This causes the sides to come up with different ideas. So desperate to deny the existence of a Creator, the writer runs to the Theory of Evolution. Providing no factual evidence, the writer also commits quite a few fallacies. Arguments can only become logical when evidence of the idea provides itself. Otherwise, the argument lacks validity. For scientists to consider an idea as sound, well-grounded corroboration must bubble to the surface.
Evolution: It’s the law
October 13, 2011 by Doc Bradley
http://unlvrebelyell.com/2011/10/13/evolution-it%E2%80%99s-the-law/
My response:
Ever since the invention of the idea of Evolution, Creationists and Evolutionists have hotly debated these two ideas. Many fallacies fill this argument, the writer does not prove his points, and he firmly sets himself against the idea of creationism which the rebutting side believes as true. Obviously, the article supports the idea of evolution, but fallacies bubble to the surface, even to the untrained eye. No valid argument presents itself because of the fallacies present along with the many false-hoods. Some, well educated people believe in what this article says, but other, also well educated people believe otherwise. This author believes in the creation of the world by spontaneous generation.
Consequently, in this article, many fallacies present themselves. Ad populum fallacies and ad hominem fallacies show up. Briefly, an ad populum fallacy states that many people believe in an idea, therefore, it should accepted as true. If a debater uses the ad hominem fallacy, he attacks the person because of what he believes. In paragraph three, the writer says, “Evolution is now accepted as being true by the vast majority of the world’s educated population.” The writer actually commits two fallacies in saying that the vast majority of educated people accept the idea of evolution. When the writer says, “With the creation (pun intended) of the Scientific Law of Evolution we, as the educated majority, can finally end the debate that occupies our courts and schoolrooms about the origins of the species.” Scholars call the fallacy here an ad hominem fallacy. By saying that those who believe in Evolution have education, the writer implies that those who do not share in his beliefs cannot hold the label of educated. As a writer composes an opinion piece, he must avoid fallacies at all cost, because the commitment of a fallacy will cause his destruction.
Several examples in the chosen article lack proof for the points that the writer makes. Found in the eighth paragraph, the writer says a Scientific Theory should quell the debate between Creation and Evolution. Only if an idea has gone through abundant amounts of experimentation even after naming it a scientific theory can scientists consider it true. Dr. Jay L. Wile’s book, Exploring Creation with General Science, says, “A scientific law is a theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data”. At another point in the article, the writer labels creationism as non-verifiable. One may ask where the back-up information for this statement lies. In order for an argument to become valid, proof and back-up information must present itself.
God created this earth for his own purpose. He meditated and thought about creating this world, chance had nothing to do with it. If an archaeologist finds a watch in the rubble of his work zone, would he immediately conclude that the watch appeared by a bunch of different molecules coming together? Or would he decide that someone designed and put it there? Second Peter chapter three verse three to four says, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.” Evolutionists might say that one cannot prove the idea of Creationism, and that may ring true, but where can one find the firm evidence that proves Evolution? Both ideas involve faith. Intelligent people do now show fear in admitting that they believe in Creationism.
Creation scientists and evolutionists would admit that they look at the same evidence from a different point of view. This causes the sides to come up with different ideas. So desperate to deny the existence of a Creator, the writer runs to the Theory of Evolution. Providing no factual evidence, the writer also commits quite a few fallacies. Arguments can only become logical when evidence of the idea provides itself. Otherwise, the argument lacks validity. For scientists to consider an idea as sound, well-grounded corroboration must bubble to the surface.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)