# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument is that the Congress of Vienna was actually not at all bland, it had very interesting aspects to it. The process was a lot more complex than portrayed, and the meetings had a more unique style and series than your typical meetings.
2. I do agree because the Vienna was much more than just taking and losing land, people actually had fun at their meetings. In fact, for the most part, the meetings were treated like parties. I do not strongly agree, I think the amount of horsing around was a tiny bit exaggerated, but it is definitely more fun than it seems at first.
3. Both sides are definitely important because they both briefly but thoroughly describe the process in different ways.
4. I think everybody decides what history is important to remember.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main points were about the interest and meaning behind the Congress of Vienna and how it is not as boring as one might think.
2. I agree that The congress of Vienna was important for the world in it's time. The Author, while trying to make his agreement more interesting, talks about the meetings of the Congress. I question this discussion because where and how would he have gotten any evidence of what happened behind closed doors, over 200 years ago. I am just not sure what happened was really taken to the extremes he talked about.
3.  Both forms of history are important to me. The article helps us understand the real stuff that happened and is more relatable. While, the video allows us to see vital changes in Europe 200 years ago. Although these changes were important then, I am not sure how important they are now. Is there information we can learn from how the countries were for a period of time

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main point was to show that there was a lot more going on with the Congress of Vienna than we think. It involved a lot of partying and informal meetings.
2. I think that the argument is somewhat true. I don't believe that all that the Congress of Vienna did was party because there would have been no way for them to get work done or accomplish what they actually did. I do believe that there was some partying involved and some negotiations took place during those times, but I don't think the Congress of Vienna was only based on partying.
3. I do think this is just as important as the articles because

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the author is trying to show the readers how much partying was being done as opposed to actual work. He is making the point that the parties were really fun and there was a lot of drinking and not a lot of focus.
2. I agree with the argument because it seems like they were having a bit too much fun while dealing with a serious matter. I think it is fine to have a party when things are successful, but the excessive partying sounds like a lot.
3. Yes, because the video shared historical facts and information about the progression of the
Congress. The article gave us a background summary of the event and information that might make us think more about the topic.
4. I think everyone can agree that all history is relatively important, but it is a personal decision on what history is specifically important/applies to your life. Different people spark different interests, so even though all history is important in a sense, you can pick whats more important individually.

# data[].attributes.body
1. This authors main argument is that the Congress of Vienna liked to have many parties and wasn't dull. They had "ragers' and enjoyed partying instead of always doing work. This subject was also very complicated and confusing.
2. I do think that the Congress of Vienna should have been working more instead of partying. Even though they were said to have been helping other countries, they could have done so more efficiently instead of partying. I do agree with fact that they were supposed to help other countries.
3. I do not think so. I think thats is very important to know that they were partying all the time and could have been getting more work done, but I think the most important thing is how everything ended up with all the treating. The end effect is the most important. I belive the video was more important.
4. I don't think one person decides for everyone is history is important. I think historians analyze much of history and find the main points for you. Then you can decide whats important and whats not, to you. If you find one thing more interesting than another, then you can research it and go into more depth.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The authors main argument was to show that the Congress of Vienna was not some boring colors that changed on a map. It was a very complicated political ordeal that was worked out over lavish dinner parties and many bottles of booze. From the authors point of view, there seemed to be much more partying with a little less negotiating.

2. I think that the author  is right when he says this event was not just some boring lines changing on a map, and that there was partying, but I think the extent of partying that he portrays is a bit exaggerated.

3. I think it is important to know where they were and that maybe there was a little more  partying then there should have been because this is how the treaties and such were compromised, but the author does take it a bit far with all the details. I personally don't care what a bunch of now dead men ate for dinner 300 years ago. That food would be expired anyway.

4. I think we decided what is important in history. When we find artifacts, that tells us about daily life 100's and even 1000's of years ago. I think it is important to know these things so good things from history repeat themselves (ex. Greece and Democracy) and bad things don'trepeat themselves. (ex. Hitler)

# data[].attributes.body
1.The authors main argument is that The Congress Of Vienna was not all boring, although it can seem like it, and that there are exciting aspects to it.
2. I do not think the Congress Of Vienna is all that boring, but I do think that knowing about the parties increases my interest in it.
3.Yes, it is as important as the information in the video. The article clues about what they people were like who formed the Congress Of Vienna. Also, it clues that some of their decisions could have been subconcious due to all of the alchool consumption.
4.People who have been affected by an event and history and their ancestors. Also, sometimes the severity of an event determines whether it is an important piece of history or not. As a society and global community we can recognize which events and history are important in order to prevent them.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  I think the authors main argument is that The Congress of Vienna did a lot of partying instead of actual sit down work.
2. I agree with the argument because the Congress is supposed to be helping the countries but instead they are throwing huge parties. They also need money for the parties and where do they get the money from?
3. I think both sides were important because you should know what and where each country took over but you should also should know the political part to it.
4. I think everyone decides what is right to learn about in the past because it's when someone asks a question about the past that we learn about what happened.

# data[].attributes.headline
Heyyyy second period its dani and zoe !!!!!!!!! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Heyyyy second period its dani and zoe !!!!!!!!! 

# data[].attributes.body
Whats uppp?

# data[].attributes.body
1. His main argument is that the Congress of Vienna is more intriguing than we thought it was. He says that it ways mainly partying instead of formal meetings and lots of consuming of alcohol.
2. From the way that the author put it, it seems that he is right and  that it wasn't actually as boring was we would typically think it would be. Since many of the men consumed alcohol, I would assume that it would have been a very interesting time.
3. I don't believe that this information is as important as the actual treaties and geography, but it does certainly make the conversation a lot more interesting. I don't think it's that important because this article was more of a persuasive essay than it really was informative. The information that he gives isn't necessarily important compared to the effects of the treaties.
4. We all have our own opinions on what is important in life and what isn't.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  The author describes their meetings like an actual party. He talks about all of the food they have and he it seems like they don't  really have a lot of formal sessions and that they real important work gets done behind closed doors. Basically the author is arguing that during those meetings they rather party than work  at these meetings.
2. I agree with the author because it seems like most of the stuff in government does happen behind closed doors and in secret.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument was that history is not always dry and boring. At the time, the parties were 'ragers', but know they are taught to be boring meetings. The Congress of Vienna was more partying than the first video portrayed it to be.
2. I agree with his argument in some aspects, such as the amount of food and the people staying, but I still think that the Congress made many important political decisions that should not be tossed aside.
3. I think the article did not encompass the same important information as the video because it seemed to be talking about what they did in their free time and meals rather than what they did in the meetings and the treaties made.
4. I think that the important history is what has affected the current global and political state. The amount of food and partying is not important, and that is decided by where the world is today.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's argument is that the Congress of Vienna was truly a lot more interesting and complex than generally portrayed. It wasn't your typical series of formal meetings and bland political discussions, it involved the social game, partying, and an entirely different dimension.

2. I agree with the author's argument that much more goes on behind the scenes of history than is generally taught. I am obviously not well versed in the details of the Congress of Vienna, but all of these realistic details make learning about it much more appealing.

3. Yes, history described in this article is as important as the history in the video. These facts grab my attention as a reader and keep me engaged, but the facts in the video are extremely important when giving historical context. I think the key is finding a balance of the two.

4. Events that change the lives of people years following them our truly important. It is up to historians, who dedicate their lives to this subject, and people experiencing the effects of past actions to decide what is important.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that the author's main argument about the Congress of Vienna is that it was essentially a lot of lavish parties and not as dull as people might think it to be.
2. I do agree with the author's argument in some sense. I believe that the Congress of Vienna did have  luxurious parties and was more interesting in that way than some might think. Also, with that in mind, there could be the argument that the congress wasn't as serious as it should have been, but I do believe that they did a lot of important things they benefited, and did not benefit, other nations within Europe.
3. I do believe that what is described in the article is just as important as other aspects of the Congress of Vienna. When you learn about things,  you should always have the whole story/scene of what is going on so you can know as much as you can about the topic or event.
4. I think we all decide ourselves what history is important and what history isn't.

# data[].attributes.body
1. the main point of his argument is that the Congress of Vienna isn't boring but instead it is actually interesting. They had many parties and didn't really do any work.
2. I agree with the argument because the Congress of Vienna didn't do anything that they wanted to do. All the things that they said they were going to do failed.
3.  I think they are both just as important as one another because you need to know the geography and their locations as well as how they meet and how they made plans and goals with one another.
4. I think that we should be able to decide what history is important because we are the ones who have to learn it and so if we think that something isn't important then we shouldn't have to learn about it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that the authors main argument was that the Congress of Vienna didn't really do all of the work most history teachers made it seem out to be and that most of the time governing or taking care of the country wasn't the top priority and if they where no "working" they where partying as if there where not big issues that they could be fixing.
2. I agree with the argument a hundred percent because them partying almost every night shows that they where more focused on having a good time and entertaining guess than planning on ways to better their countries and really taking into consideration that some people don't have as much as they do and are struggling just to survive a half decent life.
3. I feel like the history in they article were just as important was the information because it shows what was actually happened during the the making of the borders and that not all of the accomplishments that the Congress have created where just by working hard.
4. I feel like to decide on what history is important its up to you po

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the author’s main argument? Their main argument was that the Congress of Vienna was just an excuse to party. They talked about how it sounds like they would talk and agree and sign treaties but in actuality they would just throw parties and drink alcohol

2. Do you agree with his argument? Why? Why not? I don't know. I don't there is enough information to make a decision. I think it is likely that they partied, but I don't think that is all they did.

3. Is the history described in the article just as important as the history about all the treaties that you learned about in the video? Why? Why not? I think it is important to teach everything and not simply little bits and then hope that people get a clear understanding of what is happening

4. What/who decides what history is important? I think all history is important because it will always teach you something. Whether it teaches you to not do something or do do something it is important that we know what happened in the past so it doesn't happen again

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author's main argument was to show that most of the time, the Congress of Vienna was just having a lot of parties and they were not very productive. The parties were made up of very rich people from the countries that were involved.
2. I agree with this argument because the goals that they made up they did not follow through with. An example is the goal of a balance of land and power. The Congress of Vienna only really balanced the states that were involved and made them larger. The parties would explain how irresponsible and careless the members were.
3. I think that the history in the article is important because it shows how the members approached their "meetings."
4. I think that what is most talked about and what people are interested in decides what is more important. I also think that the effects of certain parts of the Congress of Vienna determine which part is more important.