I read "Bullying in Schools" by Ron Banks from npin.org.
The main argument is that bullying is a serious problem in schools that needs to be addressed and eliminated using intervention programs.. The author gives characteristics of bullies and victims, lists the consequences of bullying, and argues that intervention programs should be used to help get rid of bullying in schools.
The author backs up this argument by listing the consequences of bullying. When they enter adulthood, many bullies have trouble with the law and with having positive relationships. Bullying victims tend to become afraid of school, even missing class so they do not have to deal with bullies. They also can become isolated from their schoolmates. Victims can also suffer from depression and low self-esteem, even as adults. The author gets his information from professional studies done on bullying and includes many statistics from these studies. He also writes about an intervention plan by D. Olweus. The plan includes making parents aware of bullying and using student workshops to help children learn how to deal with bullies and how to help bullying victims. The author says that schools that used Olweus's intervention program had a decrease in bullying by 50%.
The author addresses a contrary argument. He said that many students in one survey felt that victims deserved to be bullied and that bullying helps people learn better social skills and toughen up. He counters this by saying that 43% of students surveyed try to help the victim and 33% want to help but don't. This shows that even though many students may think victims deserve to get bullied, they still don't agree with it and want to help the victims. He also says that many school officials may not think bullying is a big deal unless someone is assaulted.
The author uses argument by example and argument by cause. He gives examples of how bullying negatively affects students and says that bullying causes many children to become depressed and afraid to go to school.
I agree that bullying is a serious problem. I think it's good that schools are trying to stop it, but I don't think it will ever go away. I think everyone has to deal with bullying at some point in their lives. Some people have it worse than others, though. I think it's sad that kids have to deal with this stuff, but it's something they will have to learn to deal with for the rest of their lives. There will always be bullies, and people have to learn how to handle them. Understanding how to deal with a bully generally comes from experience. I remember learning about bullies in elementary school, but none of the advice they gave for getting rid of bullies ever worked. I still think schools should teach students about standing up to bullies and stuff, but they should do it in a more effective way.
Using this article, I could argue that bullying victims all share certain characteristics. I would support this by writing about the types of people typically picked on using the statistics from the article.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Aggression and Violent Behavior
The article I read was called "Aggression and Violent Behavior" by Lavina Pinto, Eric Sullivan, Alan Rosenbaum, Nicole Wyngarden, John Umhau, Mark Miller, and Casey Taft. It is available at www.sciencedirect.com.
The main argument of this paper is to explain how biological factors can cause a person to abuse his/her partner. This type of abuse is known as intimate partner violence (IPV). The article reviews these different factors: head injury and neuropsychological factors, psychophysiological factors, neurochemical, metabolic, and endocrine factors, and genetic factors.
The authors back up their argument by citing evidence from other journal articles. They provided evidence that head injuries are seen more in abusers than the rest of the population, but clarified that that does not mean that abusers are more likely to have suffered from head injuries. Abusers also have a lower intellectual ability than non-abusers, indicating frontal lobe dysfunction, which is not necessarily caused by head injuries.
Physiological reactivity is a change in the body caused by a stimulus. The studies shown in the article could not give evidence to support a link between physiological reactivity and IPV. The authors of the article said that this is because physiological reactivity is best measured over long periods of time using different tests, and the studies they cited were done at one time point with only one type of test.
Another study involving twins showed that both environment and genetics can cause IPV.
The authors used argument by example.
While the authors were trying to prove that different biological factors can cause a person to engage in IPV, they understood that environmental factors can also play a role.
This article made me think of the nature versus nurture debate. The authors seemed to lean to the nature side. I think both genetics and environment affect how people act. I think the authors did a good job providing information from many different studies and were able to back up their argument well.
Based on this article, I could construct the argument that biological factors beyond our control are responsible for people abusing their significant others.
The main argument of this paper is to explain how biological factors can cause a person to abuse his/her partner. This type of abuse is known as intimate partner violence (IPV). The article reviews these different factors: head injury and neuropsychological factors, psychophysiological factors, neurochemical, metabolic, and endocrine factors, and genetic factors.
The authors back up their argument by citing evidence from other journal articles. They provided evidence that head injuries are seen more in abusers than the rest of the population, but clarified that that does not mean that abusers are more likely to have suffered from head injuries. Abusers also have a lower intellectual ability than non-abusers, indicating frontal lobe dysfunction, which is not necessarily caused by head injuries.
Physiological reactivity is a change in the body caused by a stimulus. The studies shown in the article could not give evidence to support a link between physiological reactivity and IPV. The authors of the article said that this is because physiological reactivity is best measured over long periods of time using different tests, and the studies they cited were done at one time point with only one type of test.
Another study involving twins showed that both environment and genetics can cause IPV.
The authors used argument by example.
While the authors were trying to prove that different biological factors can cause a person to engage in IPV, they understood that environmental factors can also play a role.
This article made me think of the nature versus nurture debate. The authors seemed to lean to the nature side. I think both genetics and environment affect how people act. I think the authors did a good job providing information from many different studies and were able to back up their argument well.
Based on this article, I could construct the argument that biological factors beyond our control are responsible for people abusing their significant others.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Three Most Common Uses of Irony
I read "the Three Most Common Uses of Irony" by Matthew Inman. The article is from theoatmeal.com.
The main argument is to inform people about irony. The author backs this up by explaining the different types of irony. They are verbal, dramatic, and situational. He includes "inspiring annoying arguments" as a joke. He gives examples for each different type of irony. He uses cartoons to make the reading more interesting and easy to understand.
There aren't really any contrary arguments to address. The author does say that some people might not consider the examples he gave to be ironic. He brushes this off by saying that irony "depends on the storyteller, the characters, and how obnoxious the listener feels like being that day." Then he includes a comic of some people disagreeing on what is ironic.
The author uses argument by example.
I liked reading this article. It was funny. I liked how the author used verbal irony in his description of what verbal irony was. I think this is a good article to read if you need some general knowledge of what irony is or if you enjoy this type of humor.
After reading this article, I could make an argument about the effectiveness of irony.
The main argument is to inform people about irony. The author backs this up by explaining the different types of irony. They are verbal, dramatic, and situational. He includes "inspiring annoying arguments" as a joke. He gives examples for each different type of irony. He uses cartoons to make the reading more interesting and easy to understand.
There aren't really any contrary arguments to address. The author does say that some people might not consider the examples he gave to be ironic. He brushes this off by saying that irony "depends on the storyteller, the characters, and how obnoxious the listener feels like being that day." Then he includes a comic of some people disagreeing on what is ironic.
The author uses argument by example.
I liked reading this article. It was funny. I liked how the author used verbal irony in his description of what verbal irony was. I think this is a good article to read if you need some general knowledge of what irony is or if you enjoy this type of humor.
After reading this article, I could make an argument about the effectiveness of irony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)