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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The article states that if the college athletes are not being paid, that it is being considered slavery, written by Kevin B. Blackistone. The other article states that college sports should not be compared to slavery at all. I think that the second article, written by Doug Robinson, is the better argument. The reason I think this is because slavery should not be compared to something so violent and so long ago. One of the reasons is that those young adults are not just going for sports, they are also receiving a good education and other opportunities like being able to spend 5,000 dollars a year. So they are not just going to schools with no other benefits. Also, the athletes could always leave the school if they think that they are being treated differently. They are not being forced to do anything they do not want to do. Not paying them can also help the athletes themselves. It can prevent them from using the money on things that they don't need at their age, like houses, cars, and other expensive luxuries. In conclusion, college sports should be nowhere close in comparison with slavery. It is a topic that is meant for enjoyment that is compared too something that was one of the most violent times in American history.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The Article written by Kevin B Blackistone is mainly about how the college basketball players in NCAA are not getting paid. Also, it brings up the argument that the players not getting paid is like slavery. The article brings up the fact that the coaches are getting paid but not the players is unfair. The second article written by Doug Robinson is mainly about the comparisons of slavery and college players not getting paid. The main argument is that the comparisons of the two are way off. He says that "comparing it to slavery is way off base." This is showing his opinion on the topic. In my opinion, the article "Slavery Comparisons" written by Doug Robinson is right in some ways. I think we can all agree that playing basketball for free is a lot different than staying in a field all day and doing a job you don't want to do. Also, college basketball players are getting a scholarship for education. Although I think that walk ons should get a scholarship as well. So in all, I agree that college basketball shouldn't be compared to slavery.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The athletes in college basketball aren't being paid actually money, but their coaches and instructors are. The first article by Kevin B. Blackistone talks about how the majority of college athletes are black and don't get paid, comparing that to slavery: working for no money.

The second article by Doug Robinson states that "The NCAA is bad, but comparisons to slavery are wrong." I agree with Doug Robinson's article for several reasons he listed. First off, I agree that the NCAA's rules are not great, the fact that the college players don't get paid and the coaches and organizations do is wrong in my opinion, but no where near as bad as slavery.

The players do receive athletic scholarships, but for the experience they have to put their bodies through, it's not enough. Slavery was forced onto African American people, and they would be punished badly if they did "wrong" to their master, here the players are here voluntarily and will not receive any form of punishment for losing nor leaving. Not receiving payment is not directly targeted towards African American players but all players, and that sounds wrong but that's just NCAA being not a good company, not slavery. Coaches getting paid even after unemployment had nothing really to do with their race, it's just a terrible rule that the NCAA has.

If you would get paid to make a sandwich or take orders at a fast food company, why wouldn't you get paid for physically exercise while being in the entertainment business. While I partially understand receiving an athletic scholarship once. graduating, because then you can get a professional athletic career which pays 10's of millions of dollars, for the four or more years that these players are in college, they should be paid so that they can start to be independent and live on their own.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is not paying college athletes slavery? Brycen Clarke 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is not paying college athletes slavery? Brycen Clarke 

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "It’s not wrong to say college sports is like slavery. It’s wrong that no one’s trying to fix that." It argues that not paying college athletes is a violation of the 13th amendment. The article states, " Kylia Carter recalled her upbringing in Mississippi with a grandmother who spent most of her life in a field picking cotton." This means that since her grandma was picking cotton in Mississippi she wanted to continue her athletic career where her grandma started their family.

The article "The NCAA is bad, but comparisons to slavery are wrong" The article states, "And just because many of the athletes are black does not make it slavery either, or racist. College sports are composed of all races." This means that just because there are black athletes that are not getting paid to play sports doesn't mean they are doing hard labor all day with no choice to leave or not. That is what slavery was.

In my opinion not paying college athletes is not slavery. I think this because most of them are at the school on an athletic scholarship and when the school offers it to them they can just decline it. The definition of slavery is when someone is forced to do labor without being paid or able to leave. That is not what college athletes endure. They can quit of/when they want. That is why I think playing college sports and not getting paid has no connection to slavery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jack Cupchak - Should the voting age be reduced to 16 years of age?

# data[].attributes.subject
Jack Cupchak - Should the voting age be reduced to 16 years of age?

# data[].attributes.body
Should the voting age be reduced to 16 years of age? I say yes, here's why. If I was asked the question if voting ages should be lowered to 16 I would simply respond yes, because teenagers are mature enough to vote rationally. " “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 ". This quote says that psychological studies done on teens say that most teens are in the same mental stability as an adult. Another thing is the voting age right now is 18. That's 2 years apart, I don't think that 2 years is a big enough difference unless the person is in an accident that physiologically impairs them. You can also drive at the age of 16, which I think is a much bigger responsibility than voting in my opinion. So I think the responsibility of driving and voting should be in the same year in a teenager's life. Some cons towards the voting at 16 arguments are, young people are more informed and educated at the age of 18 than a 16-year-old in high school. While I do agree with an 18-year-old might be more informed, they will not be that much more informed than a 16-year-old. Another con is some people believe that Democrats will try to use the youth as a ploy to get them more votes. I believe that some political candidates will attempt to do this, but a 16-year-old should know better than to take a political party's bait. In conclusion, a 16-year-old should be able to vote as a united states citizen for a political party.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alec Gupte - Does Not Paying College Athletes Violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Alec Gupte - Does Not Paying College Athletes Violate the 13th Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
The article titled "OPINION: It's not wrong to say college sports is like slavery. It's wrong that no one's trying to fix it," states that the industry of college sports is like slavery, and something should be done about it. It is written by Kevin B Blackistone, and he covers the story of a college sports athlete who opted out of Duke for the NBA draft. It talks about how his parents knew about the exploitation of the college sports industry, and knew that they wanted to him to opt out soon. It also speaks on how it is similar to slavery, and how the industry is corrupt, and only exists for the higher-ups in the industry.

In the second article, by Doug Robinson, it shares the other side of the discussion. He states that, "...there are obvious problems with comparing collegiate sports to slavery..." He does discuss how the industry is exploitive, and should be changed, but how it is incomparable to slavery.

In my opinion, I think that collegiate sports are nothing like slavery. One one hand, slavery killed people, made millions suffer, was not a choice, and no benefit whatsoever was received. On the other hand, college sports are amazing for your future, is completely up to the athlete, and gives you a free education. Let's talk about slavery first. Slavery was part of the darkest periods of Americans history. While the country was forming, changing powers, becoming a new nation, slavery was legal and abundant that whole time. Over time, millions of African Americans were forced to suffer, all for the benefit of someone else. Very few things are comparable to slavery, and college sports are not one of them. Now, for college sports. College, by definition, is, "an educational institution or establishment, in particular one providing higher education or specialized professional or vocational training." (Taken from the Oxford Dictionary.) The main focus here is the word 'education.' College is meant to give you education, and the skills, needed for a job. If you take sports out of the picture, you have scientific majors, art majors, and lots of other majors that would help you get a job. Let's say for example that you are doing research for college, and it ends up being helpful research that can benefit labs and scientists. While the labs may pay you for the research, the college won't. This is very similar to the way college sports work. The NCAA won't pay the athletes, and neither will the colleges, and that makes sense. They are preparing themselves for a job, and a real career in sports. All while getting a free education as well. As well as that, athletes can now get paid from other sources that aren't the college, such as merchandise sales, social media, and more. The college athletes are getting a free education, a place to show their skill, and multiple ways to get monetized. Keep in mind, they all have the choice to do this, they can stop whenever, and nobody is forcing them to play in these sports. In conclusion, college sports are absolutely nothing like slavery, as there are multiple benefits to doing sports, and its optional, while slavery was suffering for the benefit of someone else with no choice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ryan Shapiro-Is the NCAA like Slavery and does it violate the 13th Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Ryan Shapiro-Is the NCAA like Slavery and does it violate the 13th Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
There is an argument as to whether or not the NCAA is like slavery.  One of the points that people make is that the NCAA makes millions if not billions off of athletes yet does not pay them a penny.  On the other side there is the argument that scholarships are enough compensation since collage costs a fortune.  Also that comparing the NCAA to slavery "It trivializes the horrors of a barbaric, dehumanizing institution. It’s like comparing a grueling ultra-marathon to the Bataan Death March."  I agree with the latter.  This is because collage tuition is insanely expensive.  An athletics scholarship can save an athlete between $20,000 and $40,000 dollars a year.  Also athletes in the NCAA have a chance to go to pro sports where they can make millions of dollars.  Also according to the article "Minor league baseball players are paid an average of $2,150 a month, which is poverty level — somewhere in the neighborhood of minimum wage — and considerably less than the value of a football or basketball scholarship. They work long hours for little money and can’t claim overtime, and Major League Baseball is making lots of money off their sweat — more than $15 billion in revenues. Nobody’s calling it slavery."  This statement shows that other organizations do the same thing.  Athletes play in the NCAA and leagues like it to have a chance at pro sports.  Another statement "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." This final piece of evidence shows that NCAA athletes are not discriminated against and are in fact getting an amazing opportunity. This is why the NCAA not paying their athletes is not like slavery, and does not violate the 13th Amendment.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Wrong No One Fixing It" the author shows us how a family named the Carter's were upset that their son Wendell Carter Jr was not getting a contract in college. So the Carters then argued that this system of college athletes not getting a contract is a form of slavery and is not representing the 13th amendment. But they don't realize that their son is literally going to college for free to play basketball. You can't get into college for free and still get paid for playing sports there. This is not violating the 13th amendment because throughout the past decades no player has gotten paid to play sports at their school, unless on scholarship which they pay for you but there is no way you should get paid or even have a contract in college and this doesn't violate the 13th amendment. "The only two systems that I’ve known that to be in place,” she said, “is slavery, and the prison system. And now I see the NCAA as overseers of a system that is identical for that.”

In the article "Slavery Comparisons" the main idea is the NCAA be considered as a Slavery. I don't think the 13th amendment is violated in this certain article by not paying college athletes. One reason is that they get free education and get their sports equipment and school supplies paid for by being a college athlete on a scholarship. To add to that though they get a free 5k on whatever they want a year. That is the main idea of this article and you can clearly see the things these athletes get a year and there is no need for them to have a contract in college.

I agree with the "Slavery Comparisons" more than the other article and the "Wrong No One Fixing It" that one didn't really make sense as the other one made a lot of sense.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In the first article I read which was titled Opinion: It’s not wrong to say college sports is like slavery. It’s wrong that no one’s trying to fix that. It talks about a reporter named Kylia Carter interviewing a Mississippi grandmother who picked cotton during slavery, and compares the NCCA to slavery. She is the mother of  Wendell Carter J.R. and the wife of Wendell Carter and in this article she talks about how her son and the family made the decision to go to Duke even with the reports saying that the NCAA is like slavery. The argument of this article is that the NCAA is like slavery and doesn't treat the players fairly. In the second article I read titled: The NCAA is bad, but comparisons to slavery are wrong. It talks about how even with the NCAA being "like slavery" the position the athletes are in is far greater then what slavery was. The main argument in this article is that NCAA is bad but it is no where near as bad as slavery. The argument I find to be more valid is the second article because the torcher that the slaves went through during slavery is far worst than what the college athletes go through.  I also believe the second argument is more valid because the future that the players of the programs have planned for them is one of the best given futures in the world if your a top draft pick.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chase Meyer - What I think about paying college athletes

# data[].attributes.subject
Chase Meyer - What I think about paying college athletes

# data[].attributes.body
In the articles we previously read, I believe the main argument is yes or no to this question, "Is not getting paid in college sports slavery or not?"
The articles talk about how college athletes not getting paid is like slavery and how connecting slavery with not getting paid in the NCAA is not okay.
I believe the article that states connecting slavery with NCAA athletes not getting paid is not okay is the more viable article. I believe this because the athletes can choose if they want to play or not, which is why they are doing the sport after all, to get paid and have fun. They can also choose if they want to accept the scholarship or not. It really is all up to the athletes to decide everything, but I would not support the fact that people are connecting this act to slavery.
In the article "Wrong No One Fixing It", a woman states, "The only two systems I've known that to be in place are slavery and the prison system, and now I see the NCAA as overseers of a system that is identical to that." This is completely incorrect i my eyes because all of what the college athletes are doing is up to them and their privacy. They chose to play, and they can choose to do what they please, which if they wanted, would be to decline the offer or not get paid.
I've stated this before and will say it again. My opinion is agreeing with the article "Slavery Comparisons".

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Does the male only military draft violate the 14th amendment? The answer is yes, as the rights of women grow closer and closer to truly equal the need for equality in work should be equal. This includes their pay and treatment but also responsibility. If you support the draft or not it is always an option in the U.S. As it stated in a 7 out of 10 people in the age bracket (male or female) are unfit to be in the military. In addition 61% of men and 38% of women support this idea. Also as it states in the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This means that women men and everything in between are citizens, and being a citizen means you are eligible for service. The Supreme Court ruled that males-only registration did not violate the constitution because the draft was meant to provide replacements for combat troops. Now that women are eligible to take up combat roles then they should eligible to be drafted to take those positions. Through the Second World War, African-Americans served in racially segregated units. In 1948, Harry Truman got rid of this formal exclusion, beginning the process of racial integration of the armed forces. This shift came six years before Brown v. Board of Education outlawed such segregation in schools in 1954. This means the military became us segregated before schools and we can see that women have come much farther than Brown vs. Board had gone when they started having equality. This just farther proves my point. The inclusion of women in the draft would help eliminate gender barriers. While the draft itself may be a debated topic, as long as it's implemented it should be completely equal.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In the article titled Wrong No One Fixing it, the center point is that Wendell Carter Junior and his mother Kylia, rose to the assumption that the NCAA is exploiting college athletes and is an identical act of slavery. The reasons behind this are that the coaches were being rewarded for their work while the athletes were suffering and being used for their talents and not being paid. Another reason supporting this is that Kylia thought of the NCCA association as a prison system as well for all of the athletes being mistreated with prison labor.
In the article "Slavery Comparisons", the main idea is could the NCAA be considered slavery. I think that the 13th amendment is not violated by not paying college athletes. The main reason why it is NOT violating the 13th Amendment is because the athletes can easily leave the school whenever they want. Side reasons included receiving free education and payments of a scholarship and the ability to spend up to $5,000 a year. In conclusion I agree with the "Slavery Comparisons" article.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reece Heit-Why 16 year olds should not be allowed to vote.

# data[].attributes.subject
Reece Heit-Why 16 year olds should not be allowed to vote.

# data[].attributes.body
The 15th amendment states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Now you would think that not letting 16 year olds would be a violation of the 15th amendment because the fact that 16 year olds are still citizens but the logic is off. If you consider 16 year olds full citizens then you would have to consider a newborn a full citizen because it does not say when you get full citizenship. If you use that logic you would have to say newborns have full citizen ship. By that logic if you wanted to give voting right to 16 year olds you would also have to give it to new borns. 16 year olds brains are not fully developed which mean they can learn new things easily which you might think is a good thing but not in all cases. Social media has a lot of different perspective and also a lot of adults trying to force their opinions onto people. Young people will eventually suck up all the stuff they see on social media and be influenced by it, even though they never got to come up with their own opinion for what they believe in. If the voting age stays at 18 they will be more informed and educated and will be able to vote for what they want and not what other people want. Those are my two reasons why the votes age should stay 18.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people believe in a draft, some people believe it should only be men, some think men and women, and some don't believe there should be one at all. There is an argument on whether the draft should be one gender or both genders.

In my opinion the draft should be both genders for many reasons. The first reason is as stated in the article, "If you want the best human capital in your force you need to include women - there is simply not enough of the necessary calibre in the male population to get what you need." It's important for both genders to be in it because of the advantage it puts over whoever the enemy is. The more people, the more of an advantage the country has. Another reason is that "registering women on the same basis as men would recognise both genders have equal rights and responsibilities in society." This is a very important statement especially the word "responsibilities". Many people advocate for equal rights except when it comes to this. The article stated, "only 38% of women supported doing so." People want rights, and with rights come responsibilities. The draft just so happens to be an important responsibility.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment goes as so, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There's a lot to take from it but an important sentence is all people born in the united states are citizens. Therefore as citizens they are required to follow laws. So I believe that the draft should be expanded to both genders of U.S. citizens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joseph Pieczynski -Should the voting age be lowered to 16 years old?

# data[].attributes.subject
Joseph Pieczynski -Should the voting age be lowered to 16 years old?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Summarize the topic and main argument of each article.

This article explores the pros and cons of having sixteen year old voters in the United States. The first part argues that there are only good reasons to allow sixteen year olds to vote. Pros would be giving sixteen year olds a voice, easier to establish voting patterns, and democracy would improve for everyone. San Fransisco may allow sixteen year olds to vote in local elections. Smaller cities have done it before, but San Fransisco would be the first major city. Cons of having sixteen year olds vote include making civic disengagement worse and heavily democratic.

1. Which argument do you find to be more valid? Why?

I agree with the idea of not having sixteen year olds vote. At 16 years old, the human brain is not developed enough and still learning and maturing. A lot of sixteen year olds don't have to deal with the problems that politics are about. They usually aren't the ones who have to pay the bills, or pay for the gas they put in their car. They don't really have an idea of the bigger picture. Also, less people would vote overall. Voting would be based on peer pressure or their parents telling them who to vote for. Social Media would also be a huge problem because if your favorite influencer says vote for whoever, a teenager may follow the person of interest. In law, you become an adult at 18 years of age, so it makes sense that voting comes in at the same time. Also, the article says about how a lot of democrats are in favor of lowering the voting age. This is because a general amount of the younger population is democratic. The Democratic Party would benefit a lot better than the Republican Party. This leads me to another point I wanted to make. In at least the next three years, this wouldn't happen. The voting age won't change because there is no reason for Republican Congress members to vote for it. Like I said, it only benefits the Democratic Party.
The Fifteenth Amendment says that no vote shall be denied by account of race, color, or previous servitude. None of those say anything about age, so not allowing sixteen year olds to vote does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, there are two opposing viewpoints. The supports of the "Pro 16's" and the people who believe that 16 year olds should not be able to vote. The "Pro 16's" say that we are mature enough and deserve a right to have an opinion, or to have a voice in the matter. People who do not support 16 year old's being able to vote, think that the minds of 16 year olds haven't developed enough, and can't make rational decisions, which would lead them to to just vote for whoever a peer, or family member voted for. I believe that people that are 16 should vote, 17 year olds that are soon to be 18 are already allowed to vote, and how could just 1-2 years make your brain that much more developed to the point where you can make "rational decisions." Speaking of that, saying 16 year olds can't make rational decisions, or have rational decision making skills seems like just incorrect. As said in the article, there are multiple, even several experiments to see if 16 year olds are capable of making rational decisions and many sources say that they can. While one of the counterarguments is 16 year olds have little awareness of the American politics, history, etc. With the age of social media, I do not think this is true in the slightest. Most teens, will say they have some type of social media they are able to see news on, and just in general social media. If anything, 16 year olds have some of the most awareness of current politics, since a lot are very active on social media's. Another counter argument is that 16 year olds will vote more liberal, because they are involved in things. This is just people complaining that 16 year old's might have different political views than them, and don't want the opposing side to get more people in my opinion. While this is a little biased of me to say, I think saying dropping the age of voting is not okay because of political views is not a fair point. Another point to make is that 16 year olds, have the right to (in most states) drive, marry, join a trade union, work full time, get a passport and so much more. If they can already do all of this, why can't they be able to vote, and share their opinion. In conclusion I think that 16 year old's should be able to vote, because they have the right to do a lot of things already, are socially and politically aware, have education, and are capable of making sound decisions.