What side are you on?

By Aditi R.

Dissecting animals gives students opportunities to learn more about animal systems, according to an article by The Guardian. Using real animals can teach students important lessons, such as how animals were sourced and ways that you can show proper treatment of animals. Also, dissection provides a very hands-on experience that lets students completely change the way they think about science and biology. Students will also be able to experience being a scientist, by doing things like putting on a lab coat and gloves. This process can delight students and spark excitement. In conclusion, students should be able to dissect animals in science class because it lets students expand their knowledge of animals.

By Julian L.

K-12 students should not dissect dead animals, writes Ted Gregory and Susan Berger in the Chicago Tribune article “Is Dissecting a Frog in Science Class Ethical?" It is estimated that 99% of animals used in dissections are caught in the wild. The fetal pigs that schools use are from the meat industry and can be grown in horrific conditions, according to Gregory and Berger. They said that animals sold to schools for dissection may have died by suffocation, electrocution, drowning, or euthanasia.  One alternative to dissection is scientific models, which are also cost effective because they can be used year after year. In conclusion, K-12 students should not be able to dissect animals because it can affect their childhoods, and it is unethical to the animals used.

By Lulu C.

Dress codes should be implemented and enforced because we all focus better when we are wearing nicer clothes. For example, research shows that the quality of our work improves when performed by individuals who dress up, according to an article in Scientific American by Matthew Hutson and Tori Rodriguez. Another example from this same article is that study participants who wore a white lab coat or who were told a white coat was a doctor's coat made 50% fewer mistakes on high concentration tasks than people who did not wear a lab coat. Dressing up in high school matters too. For instance, high school athletes at St. Louis Park High School in Minnesota agreed to their team's dress code days positively contributed to team unity. To sum up, when we wear uniforms or dress professionally, we perform better.

By Ben H.

Students should not have a dress code because people can wear what they want to school. It is their right. According to Marcus Campell, who is Assistant Superintendent and Principal of Evanston Township High School in Illinois, "certain females were not a certain body type. If they had more curves or they had certain features that were developed, they were dress coded more than other young ladies." to another young lady who may not have the same features but were wearing the exact same items. Women of Color were dress coded more than white girls were. National Women’s Law Center found that some schools ban traditionally Black hairstyles such as hair in braids, locs, or other styles suitable to Black hair texture. For these reasons and many more, schools should not have dress codes.

By Michele T.

The internet is reprogramming our brains and making us lose the ability to think, according to an argumentative essay by Nicholas Carr called “The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to Our Brains.” He argues that the internet, by design, makes us less patient because it is so efficient in finding the answers for us. Further, he writes that memory and attention slip when overloaded with stimuli from a computer. Lastly, as individuals, we are becoming more impulsive and less reflective because our attention is divided between multiple media sources. This is why the Internet is making us stupid. 

By Macy M.

Any new technology can be scary like the Internet. In fact, people use to be scared of all kinds of innovations but it didn't necessarily mean they were harmful to humans. For example, people actually worried that the female body was not strong enough to go 50 miles an hour on a train because they predicted women's uteruses would fly out of their bodies while going that fast, according to Janet Burns, a writer for Mental Floss. Another historical example of people worrying about new technology was when the newspaper was invented. Some thought that people might stay at home reading the news instead of going to church to gather information, according to Vaughan Bell in an article for Slate. Another example is people in 1883 thought schools were going to exhaust the children's nervous system and their brain as well as ruin the children's body. In conclusion, technology takes time for everyone to accept. For this reason, the Internet is not making us stupid; we just need time to get used to it.

By Zain B.

According to Food and Water Watch, banning bottled water can lower the amount of waste and help the environment. 70% of plastic bottles in the U.S. were not recycled, and they ended up in landfills, harming the environment and killing animals. According to The Pacific Institute,  nearly all plastic is made from polyethylene terephthalate, the material derived from oil and gas. They found that making the plastic for the bottles of water needed by Americans in 2006 required 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, bottled water has increased by 65% from 8.3 to 13.8 billion gallons in 2017, according to Food and Water Watch. For environmental concerns, we should ban bottled water.

By Sophia T.

Banning bottled water removes healthy choices and leads to increased consumption of sugary beverages. Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets, according to the Beverage Industry Magazine.  For example, the National Park Service banned the sales of plastic water bottles. The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) responded that the ban removed the healthiest beverage choice while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks. The IBWA also noted that research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water.  For this reason, bottle water should not be banned.