Question 1

  Multiple Answer

Ethics Debate  on Facebook - Read the discussion and vote on who won that argument. You can vote for your own side if this was your argument. Please don't vote according to who argued more strongly and convincingly. If you knew of a good argument or rebuttal that was not mentioned, please don't include it.

Correct	Answers	Percent Correct	Percent Incorrect
	PRO won - arguing that the university should regulate facebook (and they still need to state what regulation they are arguing)	14.285715%	85.71429%
	CON won - arguing that the university should not regulate facebook at all.	78.57143%	21.428572%

Question 2	Essay
	Why did you vote that way for the facebook debate? (I want to know which arguments that were given swayed you to vote.)
	Given Answers 5 Unanswered Responses Basically because thats my view and I am biased. University should not regulate facebook at all because its a good way to meet new people and also look for people that you might have known in the past. The argument that most swayed me was the fact that it is choice, and that people do not have to put their numbers and addresses on the site. The arguments for PRO were not strong at all.  I definantly think that the arguments for CON were stonger. People stated valid reasons for why they think facebook should not be regulated, gave statistics and made clear that giving out personal information is a free choice. Johnathan Eisekraft swayed my vote The fact that many students dont seem the harm in having thier dorm room or cell phone numbers on facebook, and then when they are stalked or endangered they look to blame the unviersity. The fact that facebook is a red flag at the university, the university should be able to cover themselves. everyone arguments was basically the same. the person should have their own decision of whether they should put their personal information on it. but there is a feature on facebook that can allow you to chose who can see the informations. I vote con because the primary use for facebook it to be able to keep contatc with peopel from school. If it is regualted by shcools people might not be able to keep contact with others from their school. It is soemthing not affiliated by the school. It is soemhtign students take part in durign their own free time. I beleive that the argument about not regulating facebook at all is the right one. Their were many arguments about this but none that swayed me more than being able to look up people from your highschool and even grammer school. I have a friend who was able to look up a frined from 4th grade and now they're boyfriend and girlfriend I can't get a stronger argument than that. I voted with the con arguments on this topic.  These kids on facebook are college students, well aware of the consequences of putting personal information up on the internet.  I agree with some of the arguments that you are not obligated to put up any information if you dont want to.  College's do not have the right to monitor any of this or restrict anything because basically, it's none of the college's business. Although I at first believed facebook should be regulated by colleges and universities, my mind has somewhat been changed. The arguments surrounding this topic mostly centered around the idea that it is the student's responsibility to protect themselves. However, I think some just dont possess common sense and are still too naive to realize personal information can get into the wrong hands. What shifted my opinion was the fact, brought up by Dorene Chin, I believe, that students have the ability to block information from people who arent "friends." In this way, they are able to monitor their info themsevles while still giving their contact information to old friends. This makes sense. If a student fails to utlize this feature, at 18 or 19 years old, there isnt much a university can do. By this age, there should be some common sense instilled. First of all, this is the side I argued, so I have to admit I'm being a little biased. I felt that some of the rebuttals that were given didn't address the arguement. For instance when I said that Facebook is used to keep in touch with your friends from high school and in response to that another person said what if someone doesn't want to get in contact with you, or if a stranger wants to contact you. This is not really relevant because I'm sure your friends would want to keep in touch, and if a stranger contacts you, you should get an email saying that they want to be added to you friends list, and you can reject them as being a friend. The university should not regulate facebook because membership to it is completely optional, and you do not have to put up any personal info Look, it's their own choice if they want to put up their information and take the chance of DEATH or bad things in the mail.

  Question 3

  Multiple Answer

Ethics Debate  on downloading music - (Same instructions as for the other debate vote.)

Correct	Answers	Percent Correct	Percent Incorrect
	PRO won - arguing that downloading music from peer to peer networks (like Kazaa) should be made legal	50.0%	50.0%
	CON won - arguing that downloading music should remain illegal.	50.0%	50.0%

Question 4	Essay
	Why did you vote that way for the music download debate? (I want to know which arguments that were given swayed you to vote.)
	Given Answers 5 Unanswered Responses Its a good way to sample music before you buy the whole album. Why is it that these musicians become who they are?  It is because they create music that they want people to listen to.  If they have a problem with people downloading their music just because they aren't earning any money, they can kiss my ass. It's wrong.  It is a form of stealing The arguement made by Jane Golubovskaya swayed my vote. The fact that she actually found and cited information that she researched made her arguement a good one. Seeing how much money was lost really make you think about how much damage illegal downloading can do to a company. The argument that the music business will lose money and people won't go out and buy cds if they have already downloaded the whole cd. I voted con because how they argued about how dowlnloading music should remian illgeal. Artists do not get the profit they deserve when people are downloading music. People are getting music for free when they should be buying the music. I like how they argued about how the music industries are losing alot of koney b/c of these free downloads. Cd sales are declining. the argument that we can download the music as sample but end up buying the cd swayed me into voting for pro. because i know i download music and if i like it i end up wanting the original cd. There are copy-right laws to prevent the downloading of music, and laws are not meant to be broken. I went along with the pro arguments on this.  There are studies that prove that the majority of people downloading music will go out and buy the album anyway. Also, many people who download music of their favorite artist are bound to go to their concerts which is where artists make most of their money. This was my argument and I believe in the idea that copyright laws are in existence for a purpose. I hate the fact that Hollywood "stars" make so much money; however, I dont think this issue is as much about money as it is about laws. The fact is that making this legal and overriding copyright laws may at some point create a "slippery slope," thereby eradicating the use of copyrights altogether. The cons stated more facts. martha swayed my descision to the cons. Downloading music should remain legal, because peer-peer networks is not stealing, it is sharing, its not different than a person buying a cd and letting a friend borrow it. The agrument that stood out the most to me was that everybody nowadays is always worried about saving money and to be able to download music for free especially how much people listen to music nowadays saves alot of money and you don't have to be worried about going to the store and a cd being sold out.

  Question 5

  Multiple Answer

Ethics Debate  on computers in education - (Same instructions as for the other debate vote.)

Correct	Answers	Percent Correct	Percent Incorrect
	PRO won - Arguing that schools should spend more money  on computers used in elementary education	57.14286%	42.857143%
	CON won - Arguing that money should be spent on other areas of elementary education instead of increasing spending for computer elementary education.	35.714287%	64.28571%

Question 6	Essay
	Why did you vote that way for the computers in education debate? (I want to know which arguments that were given swayed you to vote.)
	Given Answers 5 Unanswered Responses I voted pro because computers will help advance children in this increasing world of technology. It will allow students explore different website, but will be monitored through parental controls. Computers can enhance book learning, give more visuals rather thna the just plain textbooks. elementry education is an early stage of a child's life to be introduce to computers. it can lead to more harmful reasons then the purpose of "enhancing its resources" Much of the argument was spent discussing the fact that children may possibly tap into lude websites, thereby eliminating their innocence. This is true, except for the fact that schools have the ability to inact a block on those types of sites. When I was in high school this was possible and for children even younger, even more websites would be blocked out. Computers are important as they are intergral to getting a job in the future; however, I feel that in grade school, focus should be more on school work and text books rather than computers. Kids get an understanding of computers at younger and younger ages, on their own time, during childhood, they should be learning facts and figures, not how to get a job in the future. What shaped my opinion here is the idea that websites may not be giving the correct info. Money should be spent on text books and other tools that enhance learning not have the ability to hamper it. It is important in todays society to by highly computer literate, so it is important to start at a young age. The people who voted con  had better reasons and had good rebutalls as oppose to those who voted pro. Dorene Chin swayed my vote Many children won't pay attention in their classes and will tend to learn less. Also, i don't think that computers in the classroom are necessary at such a young age. Thats what I was arguing.  Computers open up the minds of students, it teaches them new ways with dealing with things. The argument that stood out to me was the dependency on computers nowadays they should teach it as another class.Kids need to know how to search for information on the computer and how to use the keyboard. I think back and wish i learned it back in elementary school becasue it would make things now alot easier. Almost every job in the work force now involves somekind of computers or new technology, so lets get kids involved now and prepared for the future. I think that putting too much emphasis on computers and education prevents students from having the normal social interactions that are entailed in the everyday school schedule. I went along with the pro arguments.  It will benefit children to have basic knowledge of computers at a young age, especially at the growing rate technology is advancing.  However, some of the con arguments had good points, and i believe the schools should moniter what the children do, to make sure they do not get onto any bad sites. Stacy Kropac's arguement swayed my vote. Her arguement was clear and precise, and she cited a website that made her arguement better. She was the only one who cited information, and that gave the pro side more information.

  Question 7

  Multiple Answer

Ethics Debate  on email privacy - (Same instructions as for the other debate vote.)

Correct	Answers	Percent Correct	Percent Incorrect
	Pro won - arguing that companies that supply e-mail should be able to legally monitor that e-mail.	50.0%	50.0%
	Con won - arguing that companies monitoring e-mail within a company should be illegal.	42.857143%	57.14286%

Question 8	Essay
	Why did you vote that way for the email privacy debate? (I want to know which arguments that were given swayed you to vote.)
	Given Answers 5 Unanswered Responses I agree with all of those people who voted against it because they all stated a similar reason, monitering email could be misinterperted and this is very true. Emails are usually harmless and should be private. Karen's argument swayed me. people have the right to their privacy, unless you sign a contract giving your rights to the company. The fact that it is a violation of privacy and someone could get fired for something that their boss would find offensive. If your at work, you are being paid to be there and being paid for what you are doing during that time. An employeer should be able to montior what thier employee is doing on the companies time and money. Companies should be given the right to legally monitor emails of their employees because the companies provide those coputers for work only, they also get paid for their work and they should not be fooling around at work.They are getting paid to work not to send emails back and forth. computers are paid for by the companies, therefore they should have the right to monitor the employees emails. I believe that the pro arguments on this topic were more important then the cons.  If a company is supplying their employees with this email then they technically have the write to monitor them, especially if some information is threatening to the particular company. They should be allowed to check email, becuase anything done at work should be the companies buisness. Although the pro side made some good points, ultimately I think that companies should not monitor emails as it is a privacy issue, which was articulated time and time again in this debate. If work isnt getting done by an employee, however, the company would then have the right to investigate computer usage by that employeer. In this way privacy is being upheld as well as the integrity of the company as a whole. I dont believe this approach was mentioned. Julia Slavinskaya's rebuttal arguement swayed my vote. She is absolutely right that employees are payed to come in and do their job. If they are fooling around in their work environment, then employers are wasting their money. Fooling around in a work environment should not be tolerated.  I don't care if they are using company computers, they still have no right to monitor their employees personal information. The argumument that stood out the most to me was emails need to be filtered becasue the threat of terrorism nowadays needs to be cut off of channels of communication to be safe. I voted pro because companies have the right to monitor what their employees are doing while at work. They are beign paid to do their job while at work, not to fool around on the computer and go through websites all day. The company is paid for the computers so they should be able to monitor anything on those computers to see if the employess are actually doinjg their work. Email should be totally private.

  Question 9

  Multiple Answer

Average Score 0 points

Ethics Debate  on myspace- (Same instructions as for the other debate vote.)

Correct	Answers	Percent Correct	Percent Incorrect
	Pro won: Parents should restrict their teenagers from using myspace	21.428572%	78.57143%
	Con won: Parents should NOT restrict their teenagers from using myspace.	7.1428576%	92.85714%
	There was no discussion on this topic.	57.14286%	42.857143%
	There was no discussion on this topic.	7.1428576%	92.85714%

Question 10	Essay
	Why did you vote that way for the myspace debate? (I want to know which arguments that were given swayed you to vote.)
	Given Answers 8 Unanswered Responses There was only on entry...and no argument or rebuttal. There was only one arguement for this, so there was no real discussion. I feel that parents should restrict teenagers from using myspace. Myspace does not seem to be as security oriented as Facebook. Facebook seems to be more school oriented whereas myspace is more of an all around social site, and there's the fear of privacy. Teens might not think about what information they're putting on myspace, but with Facebook, it's more for older high school/college students, and they would/should know better. Parents should restrict teenagers on myspace because bad things are discussed on myspace I dont think there was a discussion of this debate. However, I would like to interject with my opinion. Facebook is dealing with teenagers and those in their twenties. Myspace, on the other hand, although used by older people, is used by young teens as well. It has nothing to do with college and anyone can join, regardless of age. I know some 13 year olds on there that have personal info up because they lied about their age. They have no affiliation with a university, thereby their age cannot be verified. They have less common sense and are much more naive. Therefore, I definitely think that myspace should be regulated as opposed to facebook. The level of danger is much more intense on this site. The argument that stood out the most to me was that parents need to restrict their kids from using my space becasue the material on it is not as censored as facebook and i know parents wouldn't want to see some the things I've seen on it. I vote con because I do not believe that should restrict their teenagers from using mspcae. Myspace is a website where you can meet knew and different people form all over the world. Yes parnets hsould monitor young teenagers such as 14 and 15, but myspace is not a bad site at all. Me, personally I have myspcae and I dotn find anything wrong wiht it. iTS LIKE facebook, its up to you what you wan to put on your webpage. Parents should restrict their teenagers to using myspace if they are too young or immature to use it correctly or may be taken advantage of. wasnt my topic but i answered it for the "fun" of it Kids just have to be smart about who they make friends with.  They should never meet with people that they made friends with online, it just isn't smart. There was no discussion about this topic. But i think that my space shold be ristriced to kids under the age of 18. Its very dangerous for kids to be meeting peopel on line like that. Most kids dont know what they are getting themselves into. They might set up dates, and go meet people in person. Theres a greater risk of girs/guys getting sexually assulted. There should deffinately be an age limit to who should sighn up to myspace. Some might argue that its a good way to meet people and to communicate with each other but kids should have other things on their mind then just posting their pictures online and try meeting people through the internet.