- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Well, I really think than an image can worth more than 1000 words, and this one is amazing!
I know that in our society football is highly valued: it is one thing that Brazilians know how to do well and that is recognized worldwide! But I believe that the cost of the works of the Olympics and World Cup are things 'for English to see' would be better used to enhance the reality of the Brazilian people.
It will be a beautiful event in the neighborhood of the stadiums, in where competitions take place, but just turn the corner to see a poor and depressing reality.
It is not fair to use public money so that would please a few and the poverty coninue that exists behind the beauty.
Our hotels, restaurants and convenience stores will surely earn a lot from both events, but will be passed to the world an image that is not the reality of Brazil. We should worry more about what happens in our country than what the rest of the world think of us
Well, as we are ment to lear at least two different languages at school (english and spanish) to make it easier for us to communicate with foreingners and even when we were out of Brasil, I think that is important to be able to communicate with deaf and mute people as well.
If we want a more democratic and just country, we should be able to adapt and include all people in the community living. Just as we have ramps and special parking lots for paraplegic people feel included, we should be able to include those people too. Specially in the market, on bakeries, stores, the staff should be prepared to serve all kind of costumers.
I only think that is important to clarify the idea of new generations. If we are talking about the 90's or older generations, it is totally possible for us to think in readaptation and living without such technologies. This is so because most of them had their childhood without Internet, without videogames, they played on the streets, using their imagination, they played with non mechanical cars and dolls. But thinking about the 21st century kids, I think it would be harder to adapt, but not impossible! These kids were born when technology such as cell phones and Internet were already spread.
I can tell my cousin earned his first cell phone with seven years old, and I gain mine with seventeen! It is a completely different world, but I continue thinking adaptation is possible, just as the new generation learned to use the technology to make their lives easier, they can learn the old way and continue living without further complications.
I do not think legalizing prostitution is a good idea for the following reasons:
First of all, the prostitutes earn their money without paying any taxes, and the legalization of their profession implies the regularization of their work papers, therefore the payment of taxes. As someone used to use their money as they want, and considering the reality of our country, I do not think they would want that.
I understand that the violence would greatly be reduced and these women would suffer less than they do, but thinking about the reality of our Catholic and full of prejudice society, I do not think the profession would be accepted easily. It would not be easy for a ex prostitute to submit in a company considering her previous work. It would be a laughingstock, and it can be said that she would suffer bullying. People usually hide the fact of being a prostitute, it would take much more than a law to change this in our mind.
Also, with the legalization the sex in fact would be more spread in the society and it might be a bad idea. If with all the prohibitions, laws against sex abbuse, consciousness of prevention and about teenage pregnancies, we have all the cases of these happening in our society, imagine how it would be if sex is a regulated profession? Other point to consider is that to a prostitute one does not need to study, imagine our poor children thinking that they do not need to study because they want to be a prostitute when they grow up?
I know my ideas about sex and prostitution are antiquated and outdated, but just as I do, think this way other people, especially the elderly. Sex is not subject to be treated without shyness in our society, it must be hidden. So much so that when parents will explain to children "where babies come from 'they create metaphors and rarely use the word sex.
I just saw this on line and I think that matches with what we are discussing.
It exemplifies another reason why we should at least reduce the amount of plastic bags.
I agree with the argument above.
I only think that the type of biodegradable plastic bags needs to be clarified. The oxybiodegradable plastic bags, proposed to be used in São Paulo by Sebastião Almeida¹ is not the best type of biodegradable plastic bags. They only become fragmented into small pieces and contaminate the environment the same way. These are the ones who disappear from our eyes in two or three years.
The proper biodegradable plastic bags may be the ones made of corn derived products and recycled paper, as used in San Francisco.
Another point to consider is the profit from the sale of plastic bags in markets. Where does that money go? Should not only be more profitable for the networks of markets, but for companies that make the bags, or for poor communities. Reversing the money to the proper places and showing this to the people may phase out the sight that banning plastic bags was just another source of profit for the markets.
Also, to 'be green' is trendy, so people would not mind changing habits and carrying ecobags when they go shopping.
¹ from the website: http://planetasustentavel.abril.com.br/
I saw in some of the comments you talking about democracy. Well, I propose us to rethink our current democracy.
Surely, when compared to our decades of the dictatorship, our government has improved and now we can choose what we want to see/ read/ hear.
But don't you think we are being manipulated by some channels, by someone we didn't elect to be there making the choice for us.
As we said before, "Censorship is all about degree, about how much to show and how much to hide. It has its pros and, if the content in the media is manipulated by some people with vested interests, then the whole point of democracy and freedom of thought goes out of the window anyway. Therefore, censorship can work for democracy in preventing vested interests from being surreptitiously imposed on kids". We were not proposing democracy to be vanished from people, we were not proposing to some random person pick up the information we shall see. We were somehow complaining about the way things are done nowadays and at some point saying that is a way, that is a possibility of change and by this make our media really democratic.
It is needed people to stop pretending they are living in a fully democratic country. When I turn on my TV I do not see what I want, and why not? Shouldn't I be able to choose what to watch? Well, I believe that with a better democratic broadcast television, we could have the possibility to watch what we really want.
(Bruna1E and Patricia1E)
Johannes Gutenberg was the inventor of the mechanical printing machine. With this device the printing revolution started in Europe. Books no longer needed to be manually copied, so their price got lower and made them more accessible to the public, therefore the lower prices spread the learning to the masses. Was one of the first mass media known.
The TV broadcasting developed mainly after the Second World War due to the technological advances of that time. Families used to get together at set times to watch TV. People’s lives changed once more, this time because of television.
The Internet, in its turn, has had a great and fast growth. It started spreading in the 90’s and soon became a worldwide frenzy.
As we can see, information has historically become more accessible. With this closer interaction, people are able to print whatever they need, see whatever entertains them and search, talk to friends, see websites, post information, access songs and videos anytime they wanted.
The information had historically became more accessible to the great mass of people. With this closer interaction, people became able to manipulate information as they wanted. They can see, search, comment, download, upload, play and create whatever they want at any time.
Thinking as a citizen of a free country, this is a good point. We have the means to information and we can do whatever we want with them. But is it that nice? We are here to show you that censorship is necessary, even if it’s a necessary evil.
Aren’t we tired of pop ups, porn, racism, discrimination, violence, private matters publicly discussed, mistreated parents, false or doubtful information and the circulation of web viruses? Aren’t we tired of turning on the TV and always seeing similar information, the same bad jokes, violence and explicit sex at prime time? What about our kids? Will they think this is normal? Are all parents prepared to raise their kids, saying not everything on television is nice or right?
Well, studying a little our close past shows, this is not so. Parents are more often out and kids, when not at school, are at home, mostly alone, with free access to Internet and television. They are raised by nannies who do not care much about what they are doing. So kids, who should be innocent, become adults early. They know a lot about sex, violence, theoretical ways to kill, cursing and strange diseases. Half of their childhood is taken away from them because in order to understand what they are exposed to, they have to force themselves to grow up. Besides, being a grownup is nice, and understanding things as a grownup is even nicer.
So, firstly, we think it is important that the amount of violence shown on TV is reduced, at least for our children. As immature minds, is really easy for them to think it is cool to be heartless and start to pick off their colleagues. What we should do is to emphasis the fact that killing and bullying people is illegal and immoral.
Sex is a topic that should be censored on prime time, even if it is only suggestion of sex. We surely do not want our teenagers to become early parents. They have to know that there is an age, a time and a place to have sex. They have to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, wear condoms and be mature to do it. Not all kids understand that sex is something that requires maturity. We can see that by counting how many pregnant teenagers there are in less educated communities.
Sex and violence ought to be restricted to people in the age groups capable of understanding and appreciating that this is fictional. With no proper instructions, kids would not know the difference and maybe wonder the world is like what is shown on TV.
We should have a better program planning adapting its content to the age of the viewers and better divided channels. The concept of ‘majority of people’ has to change, no longer we have the same type of people it was years ago. Also, we have to consider the level of education in our country. If we have less useless information and more of those educative programs (that need to be rethought because most of them are boring), we might become smarter, more educated and polite. People have to understand that making jokes about prejudice, naked people, innocent people, the bad government and our unfair salaries is no longer funny, it is sorrowful. We should not just be amused by this, we should see it and try to make a change.
Censorship is all about degree, about how much to show and how much to hide. It has its pros and, if the content in the media is manipulated by some people with vested interests, then the whole point of democracy and freedom of thought goes out of the window anyway. Therefore, censorship can work for democracy in preventing vested interests from being surreptitiously imposed on kids.
Our proposal here is not to bring a perfect and well accepted solution for this issue, but to start gathering some points together to show the problem and say we could change the way things are done and maybe provide for a better future.
An important point to consider is the medical research.
I understand the traumas a baby like this could bring to the mother and to the family, but how many of these cases are studied? Do we know for sure what causes anencephalic babies? Well, if more cases were studied we could have a more certain theory and maybe prevent anencephaly.
Also, there's life in the baby. In Brazilian's law we can't abort a regular baby cause it is a living being, so why should we abort anencephalic babies? It's too selfish, on our part, to do this.
Another point to consider is: the anencephalic baby has no brain, right? What about the other parts of the body? Can't this become a help to other babies? I know it is hard to think like this, I cannot wonder what I would do if it happens to me, but is an argument to consider. How many babies are born with missing organs? This anencephalic baby can provide these and assure a life.
And as seen in Vitoria's case, she had great chance to become anencephalic, but she did not. And she is alive! What if her parents had taken her life away before?
The only good point I see on the law that allows parents to abort an anencephalic baby is: the reduction of illegal abortions. But is not a subject the government can handle. The change have to come from the inside out, our society has to rethink what is right and wrong, based not only on what is convenient.
I do agree with the girls, specially when they say "There will be always a hierarchy between teacher and student; the only point, however, it that this hierarchy should not be authoritarian or oppressing." Teachers and students should (and need) to have a good relationship, otherwise the classes would be annoying, boring and would not have exchange between them. But we have to see clearly the difference between a teacher inside the class and a friend. Students cannot expect the teacher to treat them better because they had some conversation after class once; and is not expected for the teacher to give facilities for those students (if this happens, would be really unprofessional).
The need for the distance needs to be clear, we have many other students to have as friends, and we can keep touch to the teacher and become a friend later on, maybe. But this cannot change their relationship in class.
As they said, balance is the main thing of the whole subject.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!