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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In article- Slavery Comparisons, it states that collegiate sports are not slavery. "There are obvious problems with comparing collegiate sports to slavery, even for critical thinking experts" written by the Doug Robinson. The article tells us that the NCAA is a "rotten organization", but should not be compared to the dehumanizing institution of slavery. The second excerpt, Wrong No One Fixing it states that Orlando Magic player, Wendell Carter Jr, opted out of Duke University because his parents didn't want him to be exploited by the college sports system. The article also writes, “I cannot be here now and not say that when I pull back the layers, the problem I see is not with the student-athlete, it’s not with the coaches or the institutions of higher learning,” Carter told an audience that became fascinated with her words by the heartfelt quiver in her voice, “but it’s with a system like the only system that I have ever seen, 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" said Kylia Carter (Wendell Carter Jr.'s Mother). However, I do find both arguments valid, I side with the article Wrong No One Fixing It. I agree with this article more because I find that NCAA Sports are a form of indentured servitude. This is because the vast majority of college athletes came from poorer inner-city households which causes them to do anything to make it out of their neighborhood. One of these things that can help them make it out is sports, but in this case I will use basketball as an example. If a 5-star recruit basketball player coming from a poor part of the inner city, and is getting recruited to schools such as Kentucky, Duke, Illinois, etc, and they are offering him a full-ride scholarship so he does not have to pay, he would most likely pick one of those schools to get out of his neighborhood. Now, when the player gets to the school, he is no longer allowed to make any money what so ever and is not allowed to use his own face for sponsorships, brand deals, etc. Other students who are also on scholarships for academics, are in fact allowed to make money and start businesses outside of school. I feel that yes the NCAA does violate the 13th amendment, but is more of an indentured servitude because they do get taken care of and do not work in harsh conditions but leans more to the slavery side than the free side.

# data[].attributes.body
Article - Slavery Comparisons

The NCAA is an organization that doesn't treat there athletes fairly. Their rules are arcane, antiquated, hypocritical, nonsensical. They are using athletes to make billions of dollars. Many players have compared them to slavery and indentured servants. Others are stating that slavery and sports shouldn't even be in the same category.

Article - Wrong No One Fixing It

This article follows the Carter family. They are a family that has a generation of basketball player. Basketball has helped their lives. It is the story of becoming a part of the NCAA.

The 13th amendment is the law that put an end to slavery in the US. It 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". This is an exception to college sports. Many college athletes work very hard for little to no pay. The reason why it is not like slavery is because the athletes are choosing to play this sport. They know that they aren't going to get paid a lot of money. They chose to play the sport they dreamed to play. The reason to play it isn't all about the money, it could be experience, fame and other things like that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should 16 year olds be allowed to vote? Ethan Quinn

# data[].attributes.subject
Should 16 year olds be allowed to vote? Ethan Quinn

# data[].attributes.body
1. People at the age of 16 are already trusted with being able to drive a car, something that is very dangerous and can get someone killed. In America people have to be 18 to have the right to vote. A lot of people in the United States think since 16 year olds can drive a car, they can vote at an election. Im sure that if 16 year olds can vote it would be a moment in history in the United States. The article talks about how 1/3 of the US lets people at the age of 17 vote, i think that in those 1/3 states if they allow 17 year olds to vote then 16 year olds can as well. In Washington DC people at the age of 16 can already vote, I think if they test to see if it works out well in DC then they can let 16 year olds vote in all states.

2. (my opinion) I think that people at the age of 18 are fully matured and are considered an adult, people at 16 are still considered a teen. I think it should stay at 18 just so there doesn't have to be some huge trust factor on wether people at 16-17 would take it seriously or not. I don't think 16 is that far away from 18 so i think it would be best if they just had to wait 2 years!

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the male-only military draft violate the 14th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the male-only military draft violate the 14th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
Since 1940 there has been a male-only military draft but that may change very soon.  Recently there has been lots of debate on whether the draft should be changed to include both women and men. Studies have shown that only about 7/10 people of the draft (women and men) the age was not fit to serve in the military. "If you want the best human capital in your force you need to include women - there is simply not enough of the necessary caliber in the male population to get what you need." This shows that women are needed in the draft to ensure that the United States military is at its strongest. American society seems to be split between whether they want to extend the draft or not. 61% of men favored extending the draft registration to both sexes while only 38% of women supported doing so.  Some feminists think the draft should be extended to show women and men are equal but some disagree.  Those who did not support extending the draft thought that women should focus on women's roles as mothers and focus on caring for their children during the years when they would most likely serve in the military. They also pointed out that on average women are weaker than men and women are more likely to be injured in military training.

The draft should be changed to include women. If an emergency were to happen men would not be able to supply enough soldiers to fight a full-scale war. Although women are weaker than men on average that doesn't mean they cannot find a job to do in the military.  Women who have dependents and who are pregnant would be exempted from the draft. Allowing women to be in the draft would also show that women and men are truly equal.

# data[].attributes.body
The main idea regarding this article is if the legal age for voting should be lowered from 18 to 16.

Simply put, one side supports 16 year-olds being able to vote, one side opposes it. The side that supports it argues that 16 year olds not having a right to vote might make them feel as though their rights are being suppressed, or unimportant. They point out  that 16 year-olds have similar responsibilities and rights to adults, like getting married, driving a car, leaving school, and working full time. Some of the main arguments state that, "Voting is a 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  side that thinks that 16 year-olds shouldn't have the right to vote mainly said that 16 year olds were less mature than adults, and that their brains and cognitive thinking are still developing. They say that they are more prone to peer pressure, whether this be their friends or family. Some said that they might vote based of of their own emotions, that they aren't responsible enough to vote because they can't or don't have full time jobs, or care for themselves.

Some of their primary arguments state that "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 right as a U.S. citizen." By this they mean that being the age of 18 is a requirement for many other rights and responsibilities.

I think that the side who supports the age of 16 being a legal voting age has a more valid argument. I think this because the side reason of the opposing side. One of the main reasons on the opposing Side is that people don't reach a reasonable level of maturity until they are 18, but they don't have any data to support this theory and their argument  doesn't take into account that there are individual differences between people's maturity. For example many people even over the age of 18 make uninformed, immature, and emotional decisions, rather than just 16 year-olds. If their argument is that 16 year-olds are not intellectually mature enough to vote, then so are many others, regardless of age. Another point the side which opposes 16 year-olds voting is that they think they would vote mainly towards Democrats. Regardless on how an age group might vote, it doesn't mean you should restrict them from voting that party or voting entirely. Democracy is based on having the right to choose, and restricting people from voting just because they might vote for a specific party is not democratic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Micah-ray Guy - does not paying college athletes violate the 13th amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Micah-ray Guy - does not paying college athletes violate the 13th amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
Much of the Thirteenth Amendment comes from the ordinance that ended slavery with inside the United States. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude can exist with inside the United States or everywhere close to the problems of its authority, besides as punishment for violating the regulation for which the birthday party changed into duly condemned," the change said. The passage reads: "Slavery now not exists, whilst the system, other than the opportunity of casual schooling, is basically a schooling or an exam for the ranks of experts. Yes, they do it for a minimum reward, however there are various university college students who paint their packing containers to make a resume and paint their abilities for a dedication for little or no money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Four kids protest about Lowering the Voting age to 16

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Voting Age be Lowered to 16? - Connor Lemole

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Voting Age be Lowered to 16? - Connor Lemole

# data[].attributes.body
The argument for lowering the voting age to 16 is that they have a driver's license, and are in charge of a vehicle that could be potentially dangerous if not used correctly, so why shouldn't they have a say on the topic that affect them, so why shouldn't we allow them to vote? The argument that is more valid in this situation would be the argument against lowering the voting age, the reason being the argument states that people of the age of 16 have less developed minds compared to the citizens of the age of 18, and due to the fact that you, legally, become an adult at 18.

A reason against this subject is that if we were to give them the benefits of voting at 16, shouldn't we also be able to legally hold them accountable for crimes like assault and battery, the punishments of which could be up to 2 years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. To summarize, If we give 16-year-olds the benefits of voting at a younger age and treat them at an adult, they should also have the drawback of being held accountable to the law's punishments for their misdemeanors (If they commit any at all).

Another reason against this subject is that if people support the cause to believe that the people of this age should be heard and should be able to speak up in their local/federal government. A counter-argument could be, well if 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote, then shouldn't 15, 14, and 13-year-olds, shouldn't their voices be heard, shouldn't they be allowed to vote, with this type of thinking, then shouldn't everyone vote, no. This is the reason we have a set age when people are allowed to start voting. The reason we can't have all ages vote is the topic of the next paragraph about Teen Brain Development and How it would affect voting.

Teen Brain Development is a very important part of this subject because many of the arguments against the voting age are based on how the teen brain isn't fully developed and how it might affect voting. This is true because some of the reasons brain development could affect voting could do with the traits most commonly shared with developing teens. These traits include impulsive behaviors, misunderstanding social cues, get involved in fights, and engaging in risky activities. This could affect voting because if a 16-year-old is going to act impulsively when voting, this gives social and mainstream media the chance to influence the 16-year-old when in reality, a citizen should thinking for themselves and should be able to hold the qualities of skillful thinking and overall deciding which candidate best represents what they want for their country. We wouldn't want someone who doesn't think for themselves and instead listens to social or mainstream media affecting the voting system.

To conclude, the voting age shouldn't be lowered to 16 because of the ideology, legality, and developmental stages that are involved within the ages of 16 and 17.

Bibliography:
Aacap. “Teen Brain: Behavior, Problem Solving, and Decision Making.” Teen Brain: Behavior, Problem Solving, and Decision Making, https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx.
Mince-Didier, Ave. “Pennsylvania Assault and Battery Laws.” Www.criminaldefenselawyer.com, Nolo, 28 Sept. 2018, https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/pennsylvania-assault-and-battery-laws.htm.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1McqeZaGwqpUQnoK76-IGIYQdK3suKc-4e0pLkux3ReA/edit

# data[].attributes.headline
Jules Sanders, Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Jules Sanders, Does not paying college athletes violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
The first article I read talk about how a "mother of an NCAA basketball player spoke out about her son begin touted then as good enough to earn a paycheck in the NBA." The second article I read in Salt Lake said "that the next former athlete who compares college athletics to slavery and gets a technical foul or an ejection." I agree with the first article because Wendell Carter the player, said that "his mother spent most of her life in a field picking cotton and her mother, aunts and uncles experienced that life. So I think that the Carter family will know if the Players of the NCAA are begin treated like slaves, which the thirteenth amendment abolished.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Austria's experience with a low voting age may have evidence for the American movement.

# data[].attributes.body
Some believe that lowering the voting age will improve our democracy, while others believe that the uninformed young voters would be unfit to vote.

On one hand, people argue that 16-year-olds are just as misinformed as normal voters. Also, they say that voting before adulthood, college, and work will establish better voting patterns. Nancy Deutsch, a supporter of 16-year-old voting, 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.” She tells us that expanding voting to new demographics will be better for American freedom and democracy.

On the other side, people argue that 16-year-olds are too immature and underdeveloped to vote. Some make statements about full citizenship needing to be fulfilled in order to vote. More of them claim that they do not yet have a good enough understanding of politics to vote.

Overall, the argument that the voting age should be lowered is more logical as it expands the demographics- young people are more concerned about climate change, and allowing them to vote could make a change for good.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Owen Hackford- Does not changing the voting age to 16 violate the 15th amendment                                                                             

# data[].attributes.subject
 Owen Hackford- Does not changing the voting age to 16 violate the 15th amendment                                                                             

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the voting age should stay 18 because 16 year olds dont have the experience in life to be able to vote.  Every 16 year old I have met has been more worried about getting their drivers licence and school work then voting. Sixteen year olds schooling has not fully finished so they are less educated then 18 year olds who have graduated High School and have more real world experience then them. Some Sixteen year olds that I have met are way to immature to be able to vote and make decisions that will affect our country. Yes they can drive and put there life in danger, but they have to prepare for months to be able to drive. They have to take a test and know everything about the laws and driving rules to be able to get there license. Do you have to take a test to vote, no so anybody can vote without people knowing your knowledge on the presidential candidates. I also believe that 16 year olds like to follow trends. If the voting age gets changed to 16, they will feel obligated to follow everyone else who is voting and vote without any knowledge on who or what they are voting for. That is why I believe the voting age should not be changed to 16 years old.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people believe the voting age should be lowered to 16 Because They believe that their voice should be heard. The required age to drive in the US is 16 and people would argue that lives are at risk when driving so if someone of this age is trusted with lives then they should be trusted with a political opinion. However, The voting age should not be lowered to 16. 16-year-olds make up 7% of the US population so if 7% of the population has an undeveloped brain they could possibly be manipulated into voting for the wrong person and it could affect the lives of millions, not the lives of a honda civic.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The 13th Amendment is widely regarded as the law that eventually put an end to slavery in the United States. However, there is one key exception to the amendment: it keeps forced service legal for people who have been convicted of a crime. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist inside the United States, or any area subject to their authority, except as a punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted,” the amendment states. Except as a punishment for crime, that statement empowers American prisons to force detainees to do whatever labor they want or need them to do. In the passage it states "It’s not slavery when the system, besides providing the opportunity for a free education, is essentially an apprenticeship or tryout for the professional ranks. Yes, they do this for minimal reward, but there are many students who work for little or no pay in their fields trying to build a résumé and polish their skills for future employment." This demonstrates that it is not slavery because it is the college athletes' choice to enroll in the school knowing they will not be paid.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the voting age be lowered to 16 (Patrick Donohue)

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the voting age be lowered to 16 (Patrick Donohue)

# data[].attributes.body
People think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 because if they can do so many things legally like: drive, get married, get a passport etc; they should be able to vote, Although none of these things in my opinion compare to the complexity of voting so I think that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. This is because the human brain does not develop until age 25. 16 is much farther away than 25 than 18 is. Some people may say "if a 16 year old can drive and we can trust them with that we should be able to trust them to vote", I disagree because voting between two people to decide the fate of a country is much more complex than just using a car. I feel when I am 16 I would be able to know the basics of how to drive although I would not be able to make the best decision on who to vote for. The reasons others want to lower the voting age is to get people engaged. I don't think this makes sense because 2 years is not a long time and people would mature in this time and be able to make rightful decisions. I know 16 year olds and can tell if they could vote they would vote based off of parent beliefs or emotion which neither are valid reasons for a person to be voted for. People should research when they are going to vote for someone and I know that many people 16 or 17 would not.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the male-only military draft violate the 14th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the male-only military draft violate the 14th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
The articles I read talked about how woman being able to be drafted would put men and woman on an equal playing field. This would show that both genders are valued in times of war. Some argued that woman generally are weaker than men and are unfit for military service let alone drafting. I do believe that a male-only military draft is a violating of the 14th Amendment because it doesn't allow women who are citizens of the US to sign up to be drafted. I think that if drafting is in place all citizens of the United States of the drafting age (18-25) should be required to sign up for Selective Service to be drafted in times of war. I don't really believe that there should be a draft at all but if there is then it should draft all fitting citizens regardless of gender.

The article also said that only 3 out of 10 Americans are fit for military service. At this point is drafting even worth the resources and the time if only 33% of Americans can even serve. I feel that the military already gets enough troops from volunteers. I don't think that drafting is even necessary even in times of war

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In the article " Slavery Comparisons, The article is giving reasons why it's not slavery because they don't have to pay while other kids have to work for the money to get in the college that didn't get a scholarship. The main topic was if college sports could be compared to slavery. I find the Slavery Comparisons more valid because I don't think that it's slavery, they chose to go and play knowing that they won't get paid. They know the rules that they can't get paid so they can't say it slavery.I don't think that it's slavery because they have the choice to leave and that their not forced to play. I think they should be paid a little but it should not be compared to slavery

# data[].attributes.body
The whole topic is based off of the fact that 16 year olds can drive leave home without of the consent of parents, but they can't vote.

The people who believe 16 year olds should vote think that they can, drive, 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 plane, captain a boat, be a lifeguard, consent to medical treatment, get a passport themselves, and take college prep exams. People get mad because 16 year olds can do all those things but not vote for the person who controls the nation and their communities for 4 years.

The other side of the argument is that 16 year olds don't have the mind power and thoughtful decision making skills to vote for the person that they really want to chose and not get peer pressured to vote for someone else. People also fear 16 year olds don't have enough "skin in the game" meaning that they would not be able to choose the person even if they are political right and they might choose a candidate based off of emotion.

Both sides make a good argument, but I feel that the people who don't want to let 16 year olds vote are correct because their brains are not yet fully developed and that could sway them one way or another in the debate. The president debate has always been a heated topic and making 16 year olds vote would just stir the pot more than it needs to be which would be best for the situation it the voting is in nowadays.