Argumentative AOW

      Today, we were educated by our peers about different arguments in the world currently. Some of them include: self-driving cars, school food, fast food, GMO labels, surveillance and privacy, e-cigarettes, and more. In Eamonn's article, we learned about new school food rules that regulate how many calories the school lunches should have and what kinds of foods they can give the children. The PRO side of the article was talking about how since parents have really no way to know what their kids are eating at school, this will help to assure them that they are eating healthier. The CON side of the article says that every kid is different. Every child has their own nutritional needs and their parents know what is best for their own kids. The government should not be able to decide how many calories the child can eat. I agree with the CON side of the article because I think that the parents really do know better than the government when it comes to their kids. They should be the ones to decide how many calories their child can or cannot eat. 

       In Carter's article, we learned the PROs and CONs about putting GMO labels on foods. In the PRO side of the article, it says that 93% of Americans want GMO (genetically modified organism) products to be labeled and that GMO products have dangerous chemicals that could harm people. In the CON side of the article, it says that GMO products have never actually hurt anyone and that they are 31% cheaper than natural foods. They also said that if companies put GMO labels on their foods, it will drive people away, which will cause the prices of the food to go up. The CON side of the article also says that GMO is not just dangerous chemicals; it can help to reduce spoilage and allergens in food. 

      My article was about self-driving cars and if they will be good for Armeica or not. The PRO side of the article says that this kind of technology in cars will be helpful because it will help to reduce crashes and vehicle accidents. In the article, it says, "In the U.S alone, vehicular accidents have killed more than 32,000 people annually for the past five years for which data is available." Many people die from car accidents and if the driver was no longer driving, would that reduce it? That is what one author thinks. He also says that this kind of technology would give disabled people and elderly people, ones who wouldn't be able to have licenses otherwise, the chance to drive.  The CON side of the article thinks that the technology, the kind that can help drivers park, or stop for the driver if they were about to crash, is very helpful, but that taking the driver out of the equation is a very bad idea. What if the car were to malfunction in the middle of the highway? It could be dangerous for a lot of people. Also, what if a child were to run across the middle fo the street into the car's path? The autonomous car wouldn't be able to swerve out of the way like a human driver would, because the car would be programmed to follow the law. I think that this is a pretty important argument because if these kinds of cars would be on the road, it would change a lot of things. It would be a big change and a big argument.