# data[].attributes.headline
Nick Simon                                   Slavery in College Sports

# data[].attributes.subject
Nick Simon                                   Slavery in College Sports

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the NCAA is scamming the student athletes and forcing them to work and not be paid. This system is very corrupt because they are pouring so much money into college basketball and getting so much back and the college players who are working so hard get nothing. I also think that they are working so hard getting up so early in the morning working out then going to class the working out again then going to the training center to lift weights and keep their bodies in shape. They barely have any freetime and the are working to get to their dreams and while most people during college are working to get to their dreams they also have enough time to work on the side to keep their bills paid. Many college athletes also have to eat more to keep their bodies healthy since they are working out so much. It is a system where the laborers are the only people that are not being compensated for the work that they do, while those in charge receive mighty compensation. Since this industry is making so much money there is enough to pay the college athletes. That is why I think that the NCAA is slavery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alex K, Amendment 15: Should we lower the voting age to 16?

# data[].attributes.subject
Alex K, Amendment 15: Should we lower the voting age to 16?

# data[].attributes.body
They are discussing whether or not the U.S. should change the voting age to 16, which I don't think is needed. I think it's unneeded and I don't think 16 is a very good time where teenagers are very responsible. Here's why:

I don't think we need to change the voting age, because 18 is classified as an adult, even though you can get your driver's license at age 16, I don't think that a lot of 16 year olds can make very rational and logical decisions.  I also think it would mess around with how many votes people need to count, possibly making it take longer to count the votes because there are a lot of 16 and 17 year olds who might not care a lot about the voting system and just make bad votes for fun.

They will make votes just because a friend dared them to make a bad vote, and they will throw off the balance that we had before with just 18+ voting. Even though 16 is old enough to drive, work full time, and captain a boat, I don't think that they should have the ability to vote, even if they get educated about the importance of voting legitimately and not voting because someone said so.

I entirely agree with these quotes:

Young people are more informed and educated at 18. They have more education based on the amount of time they've been in school.

“Keeping the voting age at 18 is not a slap at 16-year-olds. It is recognition that an informed electorate is the best kind. Let’s keep the age where it is, and use those two years to give teens the tools for a lifetime of not just voting, but doing so as well-prepared participants who are ready for the task.” — Editorial, MassLive.

Voting rights should be granted at the age when people become full citizens(aka adults!) Adults are able to make more rational decisions than the average 16 year old.

“Though the voting age may be an arbitrary legal standard, it takes into account the completion of a high school education, the full opportunity to be versed in government, legal independence, and coming into one’s complete rights as a U.S. citizen.” — Ilona van der Linden, San Diego Union-Tribune

Teenage brains haven’t matured enough to make sound voting choices. This goes back to the first quote spoken by Editorial MassLive.

“Teen brains are still developing, and lack full adult capabilities for long-term planning and thoughtful decision-making. That is why society rightly places limits on the rights of teenagers to consume dangerous drugs, drive, gamble and take part in other risky activities.” — Editorial, Boston Herald

Sixteen-year-olds aren’t civically engaged enough to vote. Again this goes back to the 1st quote as well.

“At 16, most kids have little awareness of politics, civics, or American history, and they have little life experience to inform their decisions. Although a small percentage may work or even contribute to household expenses, few hold full-time jobs or fully care for themselves. Most don’t even pay for their own cell phones — let alone groceries, rent, utility bills, or property taxes. Simply put, they don’t have enough skin in the game.” — Jennifer C. Braceras, Boston Globe

Lowering the voting age would be a political power grab for Democrats. It would make more democrats elected because the extra people who are age 16-17 will make a difference. Even though it may not look like it, 16-17 year olds will make a pretty big difference in terms of people getting elected.

“Some liberals want the age dropped for an obvious reason: The kids will vote D., because they are passionately engaged about Things and Stuff.” — James Lileks, National Review

They will be influenced by the people around them, including friends who will make a dare to them saying to vote for a specific candidate because it would be funny.

The arguments for the voting to be lowered to 16 are saying that people at 16 and 17 are able to make valid points.

Allowing 16-year-olds to vote would improve democracy for everyone. Counter argument: I think it would tilt most of the voting because they might be support other people, and the amount of other people voting would tilt the voting towards one side yearly. Even if they don't have good reasons to prevent them from voting, they still shouldn't be able to vote because they might vote the opposite to spite their parents, and try and get the other person elected.

“The thing is, we don't really have a good reason not to allow 16-year-olds to vote. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite — that enfranchising 16-year-olds would be good for them and good for our democracy.” — Nancy Deutsch, Newsweek. In my opinion, this statement is flawed.

If young people don’t have the right to vote, Issues that affect them get ignored. Counter argument: If we lower the voting age, later we're going to have the same outcome later with having people want to lower the age to 14, then 12. That wouldn't be very effective for our government. If 16-17 year olds are being affected by someone or something, they can wait until their older, where they can vote to help out the other 16-17 year olds.

“When young people’s participation lags badly, issues important to them — school safety, student loans and climate change, among others — receive short shrift in the public discourse. A vicious cycle of disengagement ensues: Politicians don’t bother to speak about the issues that matter to young people, so young people don’t vote.” — Michael McDonald, Los Angeles Times. I think it's flawed.

It’s much easier to establish voting patterns before the age of 18. Counter argument: If you start voting early, sure you will become used to voting, but what is stopping them from not voting anyways? Are 16 year olds really that similar to 18 year olds? They could probably still not vote like other 18 year olds. That wouldn't change anything.

“Voting is habit forming and it increases a voter’s likelihood to participate in future elections, which underscores the importance of having as stable an environment as possible for the youngest voters. ...The transitions that often accompany turning 18, such as graduating from high school, reaching the age of majority, starting college, and possibly living away from home for the first time, [are] factors that can actually make it more difficult for young people to vote.” — Lauren Young, Teen Vogue. In my opinion, flawed.

Many older voters are just as uninformed and irrational as 16-year-olds would be. Counter argument: 18 year olds are more educated because they have had 2 more years of highschool, which might not sound like a lot, but overall, it really does make a difference. They could've had more education in terms of the government. Then you have people in college that are getting even more education on the government.

“Another objection is that young people are not yet mentally competent. … Implicit in this argument is the assumption that young people, because they are immature, are too uninformed to vote. But most voters are very uninformed, and some of them are quite foolish.” — Noah Berlatsky, CNN. Flawed.

Teenagers are mature enough to vote rationally. Counter argument: 16 year olds are too influenced by social media, and by the people around them. They might get influenced by their friends to vote for someone who won't do anything, or doesn't do anything to benefit the country.

“Psychological studies seem to support the premise that teens of this age have the capacity to mull over the issues and scrutinize candidates on the way to making a decision. And they perform those functions as well as 20, 40, or 60 year-olds.” — James A. Anderson, Next City. Flawed.

Sixteen-year-olds are treated as adults in a lot of important ways. Counter argument: Sure that 16 year olds are able to drive, get a full time job and be able to captain a boat, but even though they can do all those things, they might not be able to vote responsible if at all.

“In most states, 16-year-olds have the right to drive. They can get married, join a trade union, leave school and work full-time, pay income taxes, earn a minimum wage, leave home without their parents’ consent, pilot a glider, captain a boat, be a lifeguard, consent to medical treatment, get a passport, and take college prep exams that most adults would perform poorly on. … [But] they don’t have a say in who runs their communities and country.” — Karen Dolan and Theo Wuest, BuzzFeed. Flawed.

This is why in my opinion, I think that 18 is a reasonable age to vote. I just don't think that 16-17 year olds aren't as educated in governments to make rational decisions. I think that they would be easily influenced by their friends, and it would tip the balance we currently have. I think that a lot of 16-17 year olds would vote more democratically than republican. They aren't very responsible either. This is why I think we shouldn't change the voting age to 16.

I didn't include the following information:

Roman has 3847 characters and 693 words. (And I included "Let's go Raiders")

I have 8800 characters and 1539 words.

I win

# data[].attributes.body
The article "Should the voting age be lowered to 16", talks about the how people think that 16 year olds should or should not be able to vote.

Those who say they should mention how teens are able to make reasoned choices and any claims that they can be irrational or poorly informed could also apply to everyone. They also say that keeping the voting age at 18 leaves younger generations without a voice in issues that will affect them later on in their lives, for example climate change. Another thing they mention is how lots of research shows that voting can get younger people more involved in politics, in other words habitual. Another point they make is that turning 18 is often the same time in which major life changes come into ones life like moving away from home, starting college, and joining the workforce, these things can make it harder to become more politically engaged. Establishing voting patterns during the somewhat stableness of ones high school years could make young people become lifelong voters. Those who say 16 year old shouldn't say that 16 year olds are too immature and uninformed to make logical decisions when voting. They also think that when teens turn 18, they are considered adults by law. It only makes sense that voting should come at the same time. Currently Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 vote at a lot less than older groups. Allowing 16 year olds to vote would only make civic disengagement worse.

Another argument they make is that there is  a belief that teenage brains haven’t developed enough to make rational decisions, this would leave 16-year-old voters open to voting based on emotion or being influenced by pressure from their peers or parents. Others say those who support lowering the voting age are motivated by pure politics, since the new voters would likely overwhelmingly support Democrats.

Personally I agree with those who say that the younger generations should be able to vote because not only does it educate kids on politics and get them more involved in it, it is a great way for younger kids to advocate for their problems or concerns themselves. Although there are many arguments to be made I feel that immaturity and "not knowing" enough is a valid excuse, this is because there is many ways for us to restrict or educate them before they vote, people being lazy about educating and convincing new generations should not be a reason why 16 year olds can't vote. "So many are here to judge me, yet so few are here to tell me why" this quote is what someone said on a political post online, it shows how very few people care to actually teach you why some way of thinking is wrong, all they do is just say your wrong. The same can be applied to this situation, people learn nothing from you if you just saying they're wrong, educate them so they know better not just that they're wrong. People also mention influence from peers and parents, but as I said before I think that this is another case of politicians trying to work less, if you truly are a good politician you should know how to convince people to vote for you, you should know how to change people's minds, and you should know how to get your points across to others. Saying that teens get influenced easily is not only them trying to avoid doing more work, but it is also them delaying the inevitable, cause if anything by the age of 18 the thoughts of one's peers or parents would have influenced them a lot deeper than when they are 16, that is an extra 2 years of them getting their political stance solidified. In reality it should actually should be easier to convince a 16 year old to change their mind than an 18 year old. Republican politicians make the argument that it is just a plan for the Democrats to get more votes, but as I said before YOU CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND, instead of complaining work to change it, they are the same as undecided votes, just try your best to convince them. And if these newer generations were truly hellbent on joining the Democratic party then isn't it inevitable for the Democrats to take over? By saying "Oh that's why we are trying to convince them to join the Republican party." Then let them start voting for you, the Democrats aren't trying to beat you, they are trying to get more voices in our government. Our country sits on the back of future generations and by restricting their voices you can be causing more harm than good to them. It seems as if those who are opposed think that 16 year olds are stubborn, dumb idiots who don't listen to anything, ride or die with their ideologies, and are impossible to change their mind. When in reality teens are probably the most easiest to convince, CAN give great insight on issues they see as threatening, and can help them get a lot more into politics, politicians not wanting to convince more people or not wanting their party to be at a disadvantage is a major reason why they don't want 16 year olds to be able to vote. Them being lazy should NOT be a valid reason why they should restrict teen voices, and help to future generations. They is a lot more harm than good being done by them not caring enough to put in effort.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?-Owen

# data[].attributes.subject
Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?-Owen

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think not paying college athletes violates the 13th Amendment. My first example is that slavery you do not have a choice to work or not. Going to college to play a sport is a choice. A free education is the reason everyone goes to college. College athletes have the chance to compete at their sport while getting a free or or partially paid for education at the NCAA level.  Everyday people pay lots of money for a college education and a degree. Even if you are going to college for one or two years just to get to the professional level college helps you mature, get one year of college classes, and helps you get your name out there and advertise you. My second argument is that if college sports is slavery high school sports could be considered slavery. Are high school sports slavery?No, it is not slavery because you have the choice to play sports you enjoy or not play sports at all. I do not believe schools should be paying athletes but endorsements and jersey sales partially should go to a player. I do not think players should be payed by game and every athlete should be paid the same . Foe example Zion and Baker Mayfield would make more off of their name than their backups just like pro sports or other professions.  This is why I do not think college sports violates the 13th Amendment because you have the choice to opt out, receive a free education, and get your name publicized .

# data[].attributes.headline
Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th amendment?-Cole Carberry

# data[].attributes.subject
Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th amendment?-Cole Carberry

# data[].attributes.body
Do I think that not paying the NCAA players is wrong? Yes. I think they should compensate their players but to compare it to slavery out of all things is absolutely ridiculous. The 13th amendment states,"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." These players are not being forced to play in the NCAA and it is not "involuntary servitude." These players choose to participate in this organization and play college sports. Slaves didn't have a choice whether they wanted to participate in slavery or not. Overall, to associate not paying NCCA athletes for playing a sport they have a choice to take part in, to slaves who were forced into extremely unfair labor with hardly no freedom is absurd and foolish.

# data[].attributes.headline
Finn Cooper-Why I believe the college sports system is a violation of the 13th amendment.

# data[].attributes.subject
Finn Cooper-Why I believe the college sports system is a violation of the 13th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the NCAA sports system is a form of slavery/ a direct violation of the 13th amendment. In the article created by Kevin B Blackistone the mother of former college basketball superstar Wendell Carter JR. a former basketball player at Duke University. Mrs. Carter made sure her son did not get taken advantage of by the big college sports system. She did this by making sure Wendell Carter JR. was only in college for his freshman year, meaning he wasn't in school for long enough to be taken so much advantage of that he loses tens of millions of dollars. Mrs. Carter believes the NCAA sports system is a form of slavery because it is free labor that is helping the employer make money while the employee is working for free.

But on the other hand. In the article created by Doug Robinson, he says that the college sports system is rotten and very hypocritical but he also says it is definitely not slavery. He believes this because he is saying that their payment is pretty much the scholarship and free schooling these players are getting. He also pretty much says that the complaining these players and former players are doing is unjust. He believes they should be grateful that they have this opportunity to play sports and get free recognition and education. He also makes a point on the argument that they want to be "free", he says that yeah you can be free and sling pizzas for minimum wage or you can be happy with the free education and publicity you are getting.

The main argument of the people on the side saying that the NCAA system is slavery are saying it is slavery because the athletes are playing sports and making the college significant money and giving the athletes NONE of it back to them. The other side is saying that the NCAA system is pretty much paying them by giving them free education and free publicity/exposure and that this is their payment.

I believe the argument that the NCAA sports system is a form of slavery is the most valid argument. I believe that because of the evidence talking about how the head of the colleges (employers/Slave owners) are getting free labor from the college athletes (employees/Slaves). Many superstars (Devonta Smith, Baker Mayfield, Zion Williamson, Etc.) in college sports are bringing in billions of dollars for colleges/NCAA and they are giving none of it back to the players making the money themselves. That is why I believe the NCAA system is a form of slavery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joey Markey - Should we lower the voting age to 16?

# data[].attributes.subject
Joey Markey - Should we lower the voting age to 16?

# data[].attributes.body
The main idea is if the voting age should change to 16 or remain at 18. I think that changing the voting age to 16 is not reasonable and that it should remain at 18. I think this because 16 year olds are still kids that can be leaded in different ways to their voting decision. What I mean by this is that most 16 year olds are on social media everyday, and can receive information off of platforms like "TikTok" and "Instagram" that are misleading, because of the fact that anyone anywhere can post anything they want. Another example is that 16 year olds are still very young, and sophomores in high school. And I think that that they need to focus on their school education rather than politics. In conclusion, to me these two examples are enough to determine that 16 should not be the voting age.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Pie-Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
John Pie-Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Wrong No One Fixing It"  Its main idea is that athletes who preform under the NCAA should be compensated for bringing in millions of dollars while they suffer harsh conditions.

The counter argument in "Slavery Comparisons" states that they are being compensated with recognition and their education.

I personally believe that they should pay their college athletes, but it does not violate the 13th amendment due to the fact that they receive an education which is some compensation. And this voids their argument legally, but another example of why it cannot be slavery is that they can drop their sports whenever they want because their is nothing binding them from leaving. So, I believe that there is no legal way to determine college sports as a form of slaverly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tristan Ferraro - Should the voting age be changed to 16?

# data[].attributes.subject
Tristan Ferraro - Should the voting age be changed to 16?

# data[].attributes.body
The main issue in this article is the argument over whether or not the legal voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16. People are getting involved in the debate with points like "16 year olds are too immature to vote" or "By allowing them to vote we are giving a voice to our younger generation. I personally believe that changing the national voting age to 16 is not a good idea. I feel this way because in the second paragraph in “Why there's debate”, it states ‘teenage brains aren't developed enough to promote rational decision making, which would leave 16 year olds susceptible to voting based on emotion or being influenced by pressure from their peers or parents.’ I agree with this statement because upon turning 18, you are faced with the responsibilities of adulthood, such as going out to college, being old enough to get drafted, and starting full-time work. This establishes independence for yourself. But since most people are still living with their parents or a guardian and are still in high school, they tend to rely on others to get them through their routine. Younger ages can also tend to be more gullible, so they may be more likely to fall for fake news or get wrapped up in biased programs. I don’t agree that keeping the voting age to 18 won’t provide a voice for our young generation, since we are also not as knowledgeable as a legal adult, and our points and arguments can be easily combated. From how I see it, the current voting age is fine and should not be changed.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it is discussing whether to keep the voting age at 18 or lower it to 16 years old. Some cities are starting to lower the voting age to 16 years old but some people disagree. I think that it is a bad decision changing the voting age to 16 years old. First of all, I think this because 16 year olds are not fully educated throughout high school. If 16 year olds are not fully educated they wouldn't have a fully educated decision because they haven't learned enough information on every subject overall. Most 16 year olds are not very mature to make proper decisions to vote on things. Most 16 year olds joke around and don't take things seriously. People who say that the voting age should be 16 years old often think that they are capable to have an opinion on it and a voice. Yes, I agree that some 16 year olds are capable of voting but the majority of them are immature and their brains are not fully developed to make very serious and political decisions like that. They act like all 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. It is a very higher chance that an 18 year old is more mature than a 16 year old obviously and it is closer to their brain being fully developed. Another reason is that most 16 year olds are more focused on the internet world with social media rather than an 18 year old. This restricts 16 year olds on having their own informed opinion to vote on who they want to. Some people argue that 16 year olds are old enough to drive, get married, pay income taxes, or earn a minimum wage so they should be able to vote. I feel like this has nothing to do with having the information to vote. Overall, I think that people have a very vague reason to make the voting age 16 years old and it is more reasonable to keep the voting age at 18 years old.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16? Colin Salas 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the legal voting age be lowered to 16? Colin Salas 

# data[].attributes.body
People think the legal voting age should be lowered to 16 because if they have the right to get married, drive, get a passport, able to quit school and get a job they should get a vote before 18, but I think that the legal voting age should  stay at 18 because  kids at 16 are too immature and might be pressured to vote because of what parents and friends think. Since they live with their parents they could force the 16 year old to vote with them. 16 year old minds are not fully developed and and are not great and decision making and might make bad choices and according to the article they would be an overwhelming vote for democrats and will slowly remove the republican party. This quote gives a good example why, Teenage brains haven’t matured enough to make sound voting choices

“Teen brains are still developing, and lack full adult capabilities for long-term planning and thoughtful decision-making. That is why society rightly places limits on the rights of teenagers to consume dangerous drugs, drive, gamble and take part in other risky activities.” — Editorial, Boston Herald

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Should the voting age be lowered to 16?" The writer talks about why people want the US to lower the voting age to 16, but others don't. For example, he says "Opponents of lowering the voting age argue that 16-year olds are too immature and uninformed to make sound decisions at the ballot box." I think that the US shouldn't lower the voting age because I feel like people in college mature a lot more than people in high school, and 16-year-olds are still in high school, but a lot of 18-year-olds are in college. The article says, "There is also a belief that teenage brains haven’t developed enough to promote rational decision making, which would leave 16-year-old voters susceptible to voting based on emotion or being influenced by pressure from their peers or parents." This shows that 16-year-olds brains are not developed enough to be making these decisions. Also, 16-year-olds still live with their parents and their parents could change their opinion on who to vote for. This is why the US should keep the voting age at 18+.

# data[].attributes.body
The main topic and argument in the article was that it is not slavery but the athletes should be paid as it states. "The NCAA deserves all of the considerable criticism it receives and then some, but comparing it to slavery is way off base". It is unfair but not slavery.

I think that the NCAA not paying there athletes is not slavery because these people are choosing to pay collage sports therefore it is their choice. These athletes are also getting granted scholarships that pay for some if not all of there tuition which is almost like they are being paid.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stewart Greenleaf: Is the NCAA a form of slavery?

# data[].attributes.subject
Stewart Greenleaf: Is the NCAA a form of slavery?

# data[].attributes.body
The first article called "It's not wrong to say college sports is like slavery. It's wrong that no one's trying to fix it.", is arguing that slavery is similar to the way the NCAA treats its athletes. It argues that the NCAA is exploiting its athletes because it profits off of them without compensation. The second article called "The NCAA is bad, but slavery comparisons are wrong" argues that while yes, the NCAA is not compensating their athletes well, they are not forced to play college sports. Another argument in this article is that slavery is a terrible institution, and that slavery should not be compared to optional college sports. It also argues that most people would happily join a college sports team if they were asked, even if they weren't paid. I agree with both of these, but I feel like the second article might be a little bit more compelling with the argument that if you asked almost any student to play on a college sports team, they would accept. I also agree with the argument that slavery was a terrible institution, and that optional college sports should not be compared to it.

# data[].attributes.headline
College Sports: Is It Slavery? By Roman Bostick 

# data[].attributes.subject
College Sports: Is It Slavery? By Roman Bostick 

# data[].attributes.body
Let me paint you a picture. You - an athlete in highschool - doing your respective sport, decide to take your efforts and services to the University of your choice.

Now - When you go here, you learn you must play for their team, make them money, put butts in the seats - all while not receiving and money what so ever. This, is the issue that we are facing.

1) College Sports = Slavery.
This article details how comparable College Sports/College Athletes and the event that plagued the USA - Slavery are. They do bring up very key and important points, saying that the NCAA is making a profit off these kids, comparing it to slavery in the way that these college students work day in and day out - and they do not receive any money whatsoever.

To pull a quote from the article - "...coaches should not get shoe deals like the one on which fired Louisville coach Rick Pitino cashed in. On top of his multimillion-dollar salary, Pitino received 98 percent of a multimillion-dollar Adidas contract signed with the school."

My Opinion On The Article:

My opinion on this is that I do understand where they are coming from. There are similarities between Slavery - and College Sports. For one - they dont obtain all of the money, and as we saw, 98% of that money went to the coach. Furthermore, if you look at how much money goes to the schools after - say a Final Four appearance, these athletes are making NOTHING. However, we will be talking about the counter point to this argument.

2) College Sports are NOT equal to Slavery.

This article is very detailed - and provides some very key points in its argument. For one - it disperses the argument in which sports are equal to slavery, saying that they shouldn't even be in the same sentence as each other. The athletes can also get their own money. The article says that 4 out of 5 college students have part time jobs - what's stopping the athletes from obtaining them?

To quote the article: "It isn’t slavery when athletes are not being compelled to participate in college athletics or accept athletic scholarships. No one forced any of them to sign a letter of intent, and athletes can leave the team and the school any time they want (unlike indentured servants)."

Another quote from the article is: "It’s not slavery when there are thousands of kids who join the team each year as walk-ons, meaning they receive no scholarship and no benefits that are not available to the rest of the student body. Remember the “Rudy” movie?"

My Opinions on this Article.
I totally agree with the statements given in this article. For one, the athletes can leave at any time - and they can also obtain part time jobs to do whatever they wish. I think that - yes, the NCAA is cruel, but it isn't ANYWHERE NEAR the brutality, cruelty and barbaric nature of slavery.

My Total Argument.

I think that I'm split down the middle, more leaning to the side of it not being Slavery. I think this because the athletes are being given an education and a chance at a new career. Though - I do think that the amount of money and benefits are not anywhere equivalent to the money that the NCAA is getting.

My solution to this is the NIL. The NIL is a system that allows athletes to make money off their name and likeness - at the highschool or college level. This way - athletes like Zion Williamson or Derek Carr could have made a great deal of money in their college years.

I think the article that stood out to me, and the article I agreed with the most was the second article - stating that it is not like slavery. While, yes the NCAA is cruel and definitely wrong in many ways, I dont think that it can be compared in the slightest to slavery. I think the NIL is a good compromise for them both, but we can agree, as a group here, college sports do not break the 13th amendment.

I hope you enjoyed my article!
(And Lets Go Raiders!)

# data[].attributes.headline
Sebastian Small.                          Should the voting age be lowered to 16?   

# data[].attributes.subject
Sebastian Small.                          Should the voting age be lowered to 16?   

# data[].attributes.body
I feel the voting age should be 18. When the kids are 16 first of all they aren't considered adults yet in the eye of the law. Their  brains aren't fully developed. They also still live with their parents so there are very easy to persuade to vote for the person their parents want. In the article it also talks about how less and less elders are voting so it's hard to get what's right for them. So if we add to more younger ages it just gonna shift in the favor of the minors even more. They also probably don't wanna read political news so they will be very gullible to who they should vote for. That's why allowing kids 16-17 the right to vote is a bad idea.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Should the voting age be lowered to 16" it says how people of the age of 16 should be able to vote. For instance, one person says, “The thing is, we don't really have a good reason not to allow 16-year-olds to vote. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite — that enfranchising 16-year-olds would be good for them and good for our democracy.” — Nancy Deutsch, Newsweek. I disagree and think that changing the voting age to 16 is a bad idea. The reason I think it is a bad idea is because most if not all 16 year olds live with their parents and would most likely go off their parents opinion and side with them. Another reason I disagree is because many teens around the age of 16 are on social media and intake a lot of false information and don't go out of their way and dig deeper to find out it is fake information. Lastly I think this is a bad idea because most 16 year olds don't have the responsibility that an adult have and don't have to deal with taxes, bills, and many other things that can sway a voting decision. That is why I think changing the voting age to 16 is a bad idea.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the national voting age be lowered to 16?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the national voting age be lowered to 16?

# data[].attributes.body
Article Summary: This article argues both opposing and agreeing perspectives on the topic. On one side, people say the voting age should be lowered because 16-year-olds are capable of making good decisions just like adults. Many Democrat representatives in Congress agreed that it should be lowered. Multiple towns and cities throughout the country have lowered the voting age for city-wide elections only. They're also under much less pressure at this age than they are at 18. Another argument is that "They can get married, join a trade union, leave school and work full-time, pay income taxes, earn a minimum wage, leave home without their parents’ consent, pilot a glider, captain a boat, be a lifeguard, consent to medical treatment, get a passport, and take college prep exams." If they can do these things, why can't they vote? However, the opposing side also has a good argument. They say that teenagers are simply too immature to make a good decision. They aren't even full citizens yet, so they shouldn't be able to vote. They may be able to do many things such as those previously mentioned, but they also can't do a lot of things. Many 16-year-olds don't even take care of themselves. Very few will actually pay rent, bills, grocery expenses, phone bills, or car payments (insurance or other). A lot of them would also vote Democrat, providing motivation to the Democrats in government to lower the voting age. Personally, I don't think that the voting age should be lowered. The cerebral cortex, the decision-making part of the brain, is not formed until well into your twenties. And there is a lot of pressure from your parents to vote a certain way, and there is not a lot of information that you are absorbing that comes from other news sources. I also believe a lot of motivation for this change comes from simple impatience from this cohort of Americans. It just doesn't make sense that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote.