# data[].attributes.body
Glenn's relation to how comfortable one is with someone they should trust not being thorough is a great point, and would likely have changed my mind, were I not a stubborn idiot.
Jet's point about the loss of Deep Reading being, well, not a loss, is very well said, despite meagre support in using one person's decision-making.
Jet's using book evidence. Nice. He then relates it to his personal feelings, which adds a touch of [insert pa or e here (the emotional one)]thos.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Eric, it depends on the person; different people like different things.

# data[].attributes.body
Shucks i think i'm qualified. because i thought i disagreed with the statement but they both are making good points.

# data[].attributes.body
i understand what Grace is saying, you cant just skip everything and go to what you think is important. you have to work you way up.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Grace, it's the little things, that build up to bigger things. Meaning that it's the building blocks of life. However, i think they're focusing on the relevant part of the claim, more than the natural part of the claim.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree with Jet because we need to adapt to the new technological and digital age. We can replace our old and non-necessary skills with new and very vital skills that help us advance our society digitally even more. Jet said "we don't need to know that King George III was the first casualty of the American Revolution". This is so true. He also said that if we don't need to remember minute details about something, than we can free up space for more important skills or memories. Deep Reading is only used by a selective few, in the general population, we don't read because it is irrelevant and unnatural.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with jet because we do learn things that are not even that important or won't really help us past a test or just help us later on in life.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Grace when she said that retaining more information in your brain does not mean that your brain becomes clogged. Instead, it actually strengthens your memory and ability to contemplate information.

# data[].attributes.body
i think deep reading depends on the person, you can have a deep reading session with an online book just like a hard copy book.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree, with how deep reading is unnatural and unimportant. In our society, we now have the problem of relying too much on the internet. We look to the internet for everyday use, including Spark Notes and answers which are given quickly. This cause our brain to want, information, given in a book, as quickly as we get it on the internet. Like Jet said, we also loose the basics of searching and reading. However, i agree with Autumn, she points out how we have to read the "nitty- gritty" of the book, in order to pass the test. Meaning, that the deep reading is still relevant today. However, that doesn't mean that it hasn't become unnatural.

# data[].attributes.body
are we still on the morals claim? help

# data[].attributes.body
Eric's point about free will is a great start, if only he'd related it to the original argument of morals. It goes without saying that free will impacts one's morals, but it would've been more climactic had he gone through that relationship.
Once again, Glenn brings up another minority who've been positively affected by the internet. Solid support for his claim.
This idea of focusing on a specific group who've benefited majorly from the rise of the internet is a great idea, since it allows Glenn, Jet, and Grace to show evidence of this positive impact.
To take Glenn's point and run with it, It's not just that people feel more comfortable to say their negativity, it's likely that people have gotten more comfortable just saying ALL their opinions. With social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, people are slowly losing their filter, and just throwing out all their opinions/thoughts.
I wish people were naturally good. I wish. But humans are by nature greedy and insensitive.
People are jerks, the internet just gives the more vocal rude people a platform to say their insults and falsehoods.
Jet and Glenn's point about the problem being less the internet's fault and more the people behind the people's fault seems a bit biased, since it's more likely that reasonably, the people that use the internet do have and cause problems based on their own experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
I can't tell if they're debating anymore. There's so many facts i don't know the argument anymore. I think there needs to be more of a connection, with the facts and argument.
I think we're getting away from the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
i think i understand what glenn is saying, the internet helps you determine who you look up too, and if the person you look up to just says anything out their mouth you think its okay as well.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Shaleah, it comes from how you were raised. It may be right to eat in front of tv, in one house, but wrong in another. It depends on where we come from. It's more than just whether people are bad and good, based on their opinion. Everyone has their own morals, and their decisions show their morals.

# data[].attributes.body
ouuu but i also agree with autumn because the internet does allow you to say things you would say in person

# data[].attributes.body
Glenn helped my argument; "Is it really the internet, or is it the people?"

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Jet and Glenn, the internet has no effect on what people think is right or wrong its the individual.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jet, everyone has their own morals. However, people wont always follow them. For this debate, i think, it depends on the person. Some may drop down to others' levels, or rise above and be the mediator.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with jet because people show their emotions differently or like people stress about things differently. I believe  IT ALL STARTS AT HOME! When people are saying really ignorant things and  being really negative  online. someone at home might be brain washing them to believe certain things. For example, i was raised to believe in god and not like say hateful things to people. Someone could be raised to be ignorant towards black Americans and that leads to them being ignorant towards others online.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Glenn when he said that morality depends on how a person is raised, not on the internet. The internet is just a tool, it does not force people to act immorally. It is up to the individual to create their own morals/opinions to live by and to use their discernment to take actions that are in line with those morals. The character/morality of a person is determined by the decisions they make and although external factors such as the internet can influence their decisions, they are still choosing what to do.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Emily said about being affected by other people affects you and can be negative online, but I don't agree with what she said about "Internet makes people unmoral". I believe morals is created by what you learn when you grow up.
I completely agree with Jet when he said the "Millennial Generation" is a completely different generation than older generations. He explained how they are raised with different ideals like "no consequences, or participation-trophies kids".
I agree that the Internet does not make people unmoral, it is however a platform for expressing negativity or making people unmoral. People can change other peoples' views on morals but the Internet does not do this. It can be a platform, but it does not do it directly.
I disagree with Grace that people are affected by the Internet's views because the Internet can't have views. It's the people that have views and the Internet is just a platform. The Internet cannot make people unmoral. The people on the internet are either unmoral before the use of the Internet, or they became unmoral from believing what they hear or say on the Internet.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Glenn how people or stories inspire him to be great. However, that's only one person. On the same hand, everyone takes in different information, differently.

# data[].attributes.body
when we started talking about eco chambers, i got lost. I'm confused how this relates to the argument

# data[].attributes.body
Good point about relating people.
This is a good tactic by Grace, relating the question to specific cases, like marginalized groups.
Bringing up corporations is an odd choice for Jet to do, since that pretty much directly goes against his argument.
Grace and Jet's comparison of the revolutionary introduction of the internet to the industrial revolution and the renaissance is well founded, and they clearly knew the most effective point.
Eric's foresight to think about the future is a good countepoint to the earlier 'industrial revolution' idea, since the industrial revolution brought about a slew of disadvantages.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Jet, when he was talking

# data[].attributes.body
I think ther's an even amount of good and bad. for both sides of the argument. Honestly, i think there should be a list of factors that determine, whether or not the internet has bettered society.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Autumn, the internet, gives you filtered information, where it can show you what it wants

# data[].attributes.body
they're focusing more on the internet, rather than society

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Glenn, because you are able to save more paper, being that a lot of things are online. Being online, it benefits us, to assist helping the internet

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jet, because we are able to learn new ways to solve the problems with our world; like dealing with coal.

# data[].attributes.body
Grace Shamer's claim that the Internet is helping advance society and making it better is completely accurate. She backed up this claim with great evidence: she related the Internet and today's society to back in time with the Renaissance and the new scientific ideas. She explained how the Renaissance made society better and with every  advancement, society advances and I completely agree with this.
I agree with Jet when he said "every positive technological advancement has its negatives, but the question is if the positives outweigh the negatives" and I agree with Jet when he claimed that The Internet has done a lot more good than harm.
I completely agree with Eric when he said "its almost impossible to know the future consequences of the Internet, so it is hard to argue if society is becoming better or worse because of the Internet".

I believe that since our generation has had Internet all of or lives it is hard to have a definite stance on this argument but looking back on history; research that took hours and days to complete, now takes minutes or seconds. So if you compare our society with Internet with older societies without Internet, our society is undoubtedly better.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Glenn about saving trees. The internet has a lot of down falls but i don't think society is better because of the internet.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with chad because the internet are improving as we speak, everything is getting better.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it depends on the factors that you're looking at, in order to determine how society is better

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Jet is saying that every new technology will have positive and negative effects. Technology is considered beneficial if the positive effects outweigh the negative effects. I think that the internet is beneficial to society because it has granted people quick access to vast amounts of information as well as allowing greater connectivity and facilitated communication. For example, by using the internet, modern workplaces can function more efficiently by mass communicating with their employees. My sister works in communications at an engineering firm and she uses the internet, email, and social media to do research, coordinate events, and communicate with employees, clients, and the public.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with luke that the internet has help us made it easier to adjust to the reading

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone who responded to this question had a slightly different response. And this is because every person is, in fact different. Therefore, it's not possible to generalize what is 'true' for all people, as others did many times during the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Carr found that the tactility of a book helps us to comprehend, this goes back to why books were better than scrolls, they are not a long stream of text but divided in a physical way we can remember. As a more tactile thinker I benefit from remembering where the events happened in the physicality of the book.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Luke, you are able to control the settings off your phone making it easier to focus and concentrate on the text.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Masaria in the sense that it does increase survival rate but its not really vital. my mom sister and i all, almost died during our birth technology did help to increase our chance of survival, for ex the incubator which regulated our temperature. But we were injected with two doses of steroids that increased or lung function by two months my mom was injected with magnesium to basically paralyze her to minimize movement all of these life saving efforts were done manually and technology aided in the process. doctors manually did surgery all of these things were done by hand

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Mackenzie we don't need all technology. Many technologies have messed with our ecosystems. Such as cars which pollutes our air.

# data[].attributes.body
You can always manually help someone to be better and to help others. technology in itself isn't completely reliable for example nurses paramedics and doctors need to know how to manually take pressure and pulse etc. in case the machines fail. its more of a luxury then something that is a vital.

# data[].attributes.body
The Internet allows the public to more easily see the concerns and struggles of people in need, and technology creates advancements in medicine and transportation. Destiny's point about the use of technology inevitably causing climate change I do agree with as a concern. Technology is such a vague term which makes this argument difficult

# data[].attributes.body
Eva claims that technology saves lives, especially those who are disabled and need to rely on technology to survive. This is true, and therefore technology does help people who need the help. However, whether this technology helps the world or not is a point that Darwin may argue against.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Garrett, the internet itself is not fostering negativity but the people who use it are.

# data[].attributes.body
McKenzie is saying that it isn't vital to use this technology because it is messing up our environment. We need to learn alternative ways to helping these people.

Julie is smart not gonna lie. She knows that we can use these natural resources to fix things that technology can fix as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Sheyanne is correct in stating that while technology has brought forth some negatives in the environment, it is very important for those who have disabilities or are ill because there are many new advancements that strive to eliminate the problems and help prevent these problems from becoming worse.

Eva makes a good point about how the internet allows for us to connect with other countries to see how they are helping those with disabilities and illnesses. It also helps to spread awareness of the issues and the attention that it receives can promote further support and advancements in the situations.

# data[].attributes.body
but technology helps us find with us finding out how to make medicine getting better and or to see are dna to see whats happen to see whats wrong with use

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Eva and Mackenzie that the internet may encourage others to follow that idea. Teenagers jump to follow the next trend that comes out because they are encouraged by others and the popularity it brings

# data[].attributes.body
negative news has always been more attention grabbing. its mostly culture that has been growing more negative over time

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Garrett that the internet is a form of expression, people put those negative things on there, not the net.

# data[].attributes.body
Julie is correct in saying that it depends on the person, and that people are the ones who create and promote negativity. People are different. And it's hard to generalize them.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Mackenzie in the sense that when people gather they do converse more about certain topics but those are the PEOPLE coming together and doing this. they are using the internet to their advantage t express these opinion that they already have.

# data[].attributes.body
Garret is correct in his assertion that the internet is only the host the the negativity, but it in fact hinders negativity

# data[].attributes.body
Most people who use the internet are friendly and easily allow people to meet new friends and socialize with communities that are important to you. people talk more about hate, and they have always been the ones who are much louder

# data[].attributes.body
Eva says that the Internet does foster negativity because it lets negativity grow. However, if this were true, then other claims must be drawn with the same line of logic. After all, the Earth gives humans a place to spread negativity. Religious views may create another line of thought. The government, local or federal, who allows the creation of public spaces, fosters negativity by giving people a channel and place to spread negativity.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the internet to bully someone is nothing different then the gossip that has always existed, and in reality it allows people who use bullying as a stress mechanism have a place to vent that honestly is much less harmful, and more easily regulates

# data[].attributes.body
Garrett is accurate in arguing that the internet itself doesn't foster negativity its just an extension of human will, the internet just gives you a platform to express that negativity and express those negative thoughts

# data[].attributes.body
Garrett how the internet is not what it doing it its the people doing it so its not the internet promote it its the people

# data[].attributes.body
It's easier to promote negativity online because it's easier to hide behind a screen and say or do something negative. Because you're not face to face with someone, often times your actions and the consequences don't seem real. A lot of time in real life, if you're being negative to someone, you'll stop when you cross a certain line, based on the state of the other person. (Ex. If you're yelling at someone, you might stop when they start crying.) If you can't see the person that you're being mean to, you don't know how you're affecting them or when to stop. The disconnect between yourself and other people online makes it easier to be negative and rude.

# data[].attributes.body
The increasing suicide rates in teens is mostly linked to the "new age" parenting techniques that have been scientifically studied to increase depression rates, with or without the internet

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Eva. It will be harmful. But people are saying the truth. They might be saying negativity things but it's only the bubble wrapped kids who take this for themselves and sit on it. Carr said if you sit on the problem it makes it worse but it's not the internet. It's the people involved. You are putting yourself out there and putting yourself out on the internet.

# data[].attributes.body
While the Internet makes it easier to bully it also makes it easier to ignore I agree with a combination of Eva and Luke's point. There has been a change from physical and verbal to just verbal bullying. I agree with Eva that it allows for people to congregate and speak in an unprecedented ways but it can do this in positive and negative ways. From incels and sex trafficking (lauren mentioned) too social movements and support groups the Internet allows for all of this. The Internet amplifies the horrors and beauties of humanity. (garrett touches on this, but he implies that the Internet has no effect on humanities behavior which I disagree on, since elements of culture do change how we behave, as mentioned by Carr with intellectual ethics)

# data[].attributes.body
Someone (I'm bad with names. She has I think the longest hair of the class.) mentions that people body shame others online and people eat laundry detergent for fun, but as Luke mentions while I'm typing this, it happens in real life anyways. People will be mean regardless of platform. The Internet doesn't foster negativity by design. Garret says this, as I'm typing again, that people are the ones promoting negativity using the Internet.

# data[].attributes.body
The internet does provide a platform for negativity. Instagram for example does not stop most of the negativity making it a safe haven for it.

# data[].attributes.body
This has happened without the internet, and it has always existed. bullying has always existed, and honestly its better now then it ever has been. no one is getting punched in the face. no one is going home with a bloody nose

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that little kids are very impressionable, so when they see someone acting in a negative way online, they will see that and think it's normal or cool, and act that way a lot, both on and offline.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Sheliah and eva about how the internet is shaming people which can lead to them killing themselves because they find themselves hating themselves

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is accurate in defending the point that the internet fosters negativity because cyberbullying and false information online that is especially negative towards younger people who are vulnerable to this. The internet allows for an even larger environment of negativity.

Eva is also accurate in recognizing that the internet allows negative information to gather and stay online for a long time, and this further promotes the negativity as it influences those who come across it.

Lauren is accurate in mentioning how sex trafficking and identity fraud allow for more ways of negativity because it promotes easier ways for those actions to be committed.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with Eva in the sense that people do use the internet for negative things like cyber bullying but i don't think that cyber bullying is a result of the internet. before the internet people just bullied you to your face but the internet just gives you away to do it behind a screen

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree Lauren with the fear of loss of the Internet. The fact that we are reliant on something does not mean we should not use it, If we suddenly lost the written word we would be in just as much (and likely more)trouble than if we lost the Internet yet we are not concerned with that. Granted the Internet would be easier to lose.

# data[].attributes.body
sheyana i cant use the dictionary bceause i cant spell for my life because i cant sound it out so i have nothing to go off of so a dictionary is useless

# data[].attributes.body
you need to exercise your brain in order to maintain that knowledge for example with languages when learning a language they tell you to always study and refresh and to keep speaking that language because as time goes on and you continue to learn other things your brain will make space for what it views as priority so to stay up to date on those things you need to practice. If you continue to rely on the internet for everything and don't work to come up with your own views and opinions then you wont know how to use that skill. Auto-correct fixes our work for us and we don't take the time to learn how to spell that word ourselves since we know the net will do it for us

# data[].attributes.body
When it was said that kids in the future won't know how to function without the internet, I disagree. There's always going to be at least some aspect of life in the (near) future that won't be related to technology. Just like now, even though we have computers, people still know how to use a book. Kids in the future will be able to cope without technology.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with what eva just said about her dad because having that spellcheck and with the dictionary you cant find something if you dont know have to spell it

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Lauren that you become too reliant on Microsoft Word / spellcheck which hinders your deep thought on what you're doing. If you're typing fast, autocorrect can help fix small errors. In addition, sometimes people aren't aware that the way they spell a word is wrong, and autocorrect allows them to realize and fix their mistake.

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is accurate in arguing that people do learn in different ways and there is no absolute way of acquiring knowledge. people use different methods to learn, someone who is good at multitasking may have an easier time learning with distractions than the average person

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Julie that the internet is highly distracting which prevents deep thought. It is harder to have deep thought when you're constantly checking other unrelated things.

# data[].attributes.body
Lauryn in my opinion is wrong here because we have this auto-correct to show our mistakes so we do not make it again. Not to just automatically fix our point but to show us errors that we can work on.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Lauren, critical thinking is not the same as recall like spelling which she used as an example of the Internet hindering.

Reading is not easy for everyone as Eva said her dad has dyslexia, my dad does too, and by making the actual writing process easier, through things like auto correct, we can think more deeply about the actual content. This is part of computers and not the Internet entirely.

Julie is accurate with her quote based off the studies presented by Carr and the Internet's ability to overstimulate does hinder our thought processes because we are overstimulated.

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is on the side of the internet doesn't hinder this creative thought by saying that when you bounce ideas off of each other and branching off of other's ideas and by looking up new things.

Mckenna tries to say that auto correct doesn't allow creativity but when you have auto correct or searching up words you type the sounds out but other words come up and you get interested in these new words of what come up.

# data[].attributes.body
sheyana is talking about how the internet is hider critical thinking because how you are just looking of what people do. however you make your self about type and you get a foundation that make you be able to make it something yours

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Eva that the Internet allows you to find other ideas on the internet to inspire your own work, but a lot of time 'inspiration' borders plagiarism.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Eva, although you have low work ethic if you use websites like Spark notes it does limit your thinking. It makes you dependent on the source rather than your own thought to be used.

I agree with Lauren, supported by Carr once you forget or you don't put something to memory you will forget it. Since the brain is able to stretch and conform you can lose that information.

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is correct in pointing out that the Internet allows for the spread of ideas, creativity, and creative products.

Misaria is accurate in saying that the Internet does offer information that already exists, but students have the choice to be honourable, as Eva points out while I'm typing this. Also, critical thinking does involve problem solving, such as finding an answer when one cannot find it themselves.

Julie claims that the Internet scatters attention, which prevents creativity. However, the Internet doesn't have to scatter attention. It merely has optional aspects that do. Also, scattered attention promotes different kinds of thinking, and thinking differently may result in different creative processes, for better or worse.

Luke does well in pointing out that convenience in typing will bring out new ideas.

Cheyanne (might be the wrong person/spelling) says that looking through the dictionary will cause someone to find the definitions of other words and that will benefit them. There's such a thing as a cognitive blindspot and an easy way to prove it, but its effect is lost when typed.

One piece that everyone seems to have ignored, except to some degree Eva, is that almost every statement has been a generalization or an absolute. People are all different. It's just not logical to say that because one personally has issues with spelling that everyone has to use a dictionary and spellcheck to make sure they use the right word.
Luke gets close to this by saying, 'Fine is subjective.'

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is accurate in claiming that the internet enhances creativity because it opens the world up to new concepts that can inspire others and help form new and original ideas.

Julie states that the internet hinders critical thinking and creativity because it poses as a distraction that prevents ideas from flourishing, but this is inaccurate because she fails to recognize that it is not a distraction for every single person that uses the internet.

Garrett brought up a good and accurate point about how it is hard to compare a dictionary to the internet and that the internet overall changes our way of thinking. Dictionaries and technology are two separate mediums that definitely do make our brains think in different ways, as reading and searching through a list of definitions is way different than opening up google to find a specific word or definition.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Eva, this is a point I made about creativity, it is bolstered by the resources around you, creativity comes from a combination and synthesization of older ideas. This can be seen in art movements like impressionism or cubism

# data[].attributes.body
Sheyanne is accurate in arguing that while the internet does give you access to others opinions, those are others opinions not your own so you aren't using critical thinking you're using other peoples ideas and not thinking it through yourself they aren't your own thoughts and ideas which isn't using your own creativity

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of creativity as something being completely original is flawed, as everything has inspirations, and the internet opens us up to more places to be inspired

Eve is correct about the difference between work ethic and creativity as well as critical thinking.

What they are talking about is memory, not critical thinking. you dont think about the alphabet every time you sing the song. memory and critical thinking is very different

When talking about the mass amount of information presented by the internet, it changes depending how you use is. the flexibility of the internet allows people to create an experience to suit them, as long as they know how to use it

Any notion that spellcheck is a bad thing is slightly strange. most of the things that it provides only creates a more accessible way to communicate idea's

Garret brought up a good point. they are arguing that the dictionary is better then the internet, but they are very much different, and the idea that the internet can not function as a dictionary

off of eve's idea, people wont ever completely be dependent on the internet

# data[].attributes.body
Eva is accurate in arguing that the internet is making society worse because ______________________________. However, this argument fails to recognize ________________.