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)	46.666668%	53.333336%
	CON won - arguing that the university should not regulate facebook at all.	53.333336%	46.666668%

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 2 Unanswered Responses People's personal information allows others to stalk you very easily, its not safe. This is in my opinion because the people say pro facebook bring up very good points Christopher said that you have the option to put as much or as little information that you want on your profile. Therefore, you are regulating it yourself I liked Thomas Pollari's statement. I also think university shopuld regulate face book. If anyone taking it wrong way it is their fault. i believe the fact that facebook posts that they aren't liable for what happens means shouldnt be held responsible Universities should regulate facebook because the information the student provides is very personal.  A person can find out a students adress, name, birthdate, and school with just a click of a button.  This can be very harmful to a student if the information comes in contact with a person of horrible motives. i agree with the con side because as jonathon defranco said, "The college should not regulate facebook because there is already a way in which you can regulate it.  If you dont want people seeing your profile, you can choose the option to make it viewable to only friends, not everyone." This is true so that means the person themselves has the right to regulate it. I voted CON when I read the argument that you (the creator of facebook) can regulate on your own by choosing who can see your profile.  You can set it so that only your friends, who you must approve, can view your profile. "But people also have to remember the fact that those are just opinions of other people and not solid fact. If some chooses to believe then its their own fault not the website. Website is up so people can interact from different or the same colleges not discuss how bad a college or what someone thinks of another. Even though using facebook to harass other peple is childish those who join facebook take that chance since facebook clearly states how they are not liable for it in thier terms of use." That is a really really good point. because the opposing side  seemed to  argue about  the enjoyment of facebook The reason i voted this way for the facebook debate was because of a few arguments that swayed my vote -the one that really had a great impact on my vote was: i feel that we should regulate facebook because you have the option of blocking and rejecting random people to be your friends and if you do not now you the person is requesting to be your friend you can reject them and the login and password is to protect your privacy which is the biggest key in the argument. I think the university should regulate facebook , but only for the students' safety.  The university should not give out last names, where the student's live on campus, or where they are from specifically.  This would be in best interest for the student's safety. I believe that both johnathan and my arguments are very true and vaild. For all the students that sign up for facebook and should be told to read the announcements and the whole idea behind facebook. Then after they do that they should have to press an accept button on the bottom of all the terms and condtions. Then therefore they should be allowed to join facebook after. Facebook is already regulated in a way.  You have the option to block people from viewing your profile that you do not know.  I voted this way because this is my topic. I feel that my group argued out point  convincingly and in turn defended our cause.

  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	40.0%	60.000004%
	CON won - arguing that downloading music should remain illegal.	66.66667%	33.333336%
	not discussed on the board	100.0%	0.0%
	not discussed on the board	100.0%	0.0%

Question 4	Essay	Average Score 0 points
	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 3 Unanswered Responses The artists who write these songs make a lot of money and this should not effect them as much as thery are complaining about. I liked James Reuter's argument.I also think downloading music is illegal, eventhough i like to download music.James is right artists only form of incoome is their album. I think pro won this even though there were more con the fact that the pro made better statements then the cons did pushed me this way to vote. they showed actual statistics i was impressed Peer to Peer should be made legal.  It is your music, and there are other ways going about sharing it, so why not be aloud to share it with everyone? Downloading music should be illegal  because it is stealing.  However if the artist makes it available for their fans than it may not be stealing.  Otherwise if this is not authorized from the artist it is a form of stealing. Downloading music for free should remain illegal because it is stealing.  An artist works very hard in creating their pieces, and for a person to download them for free is wrong.  It steals from the artists income and their hard work. i believe that downloading music should be made legal because this doesnt really deter people that much from buying music, if anything it makes people more aware of what music is out there.  If you think about it that way then the downloading programs like kazaa can also be used for advertising a new artist. The argument that its ok when used in moderation Andrea argued that musical artists should choose if thier work should be free on the internet and not decided by Kazaa. Both had arguements that made sense and made you think about the question. I feel that in this discussion board that both sides had very good arguments on downloading music should be or shouldnt be legal. I am going in favor of the side that music should remain illegal to download because its taking money away from the music artists and the idea of kimberly's that it also taking money away from the stores that sell these music cds as well. I voted this way not because I think that the artists have the right to say whether or not they want their music on the web for others to listen to. And yes I think they are also being robbed of their money at the same time because they work so hard on making their albums and in the end noone buys them because they just download it off the internet. This was my argument

  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	60.000004%	40.0%
	CON won - Arguing that money should be spent on other areas of elementary education instead of increasing spending for computer elementary education.	33.333336%	66.66667%

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 3 Unanswered Responses I joined with Ruslan Khamurzov's argument. I also think school should spend more money on computers used in elementary school. When student go from elementary school to high school, if they know how to use the computer, it will be easy for their higher education.  I voted this way because of one of one of the arguments that stated that kids need to live a healthy life when they are young and not only be sitting infront of a computer all day. They need to learn how to socialize. I agree with that statement. I think the government should increase spending money on computers for schools because it can only better the knowlege of the student.  The students will learn computer skills earlier, enhancing their chances of further developing, or even mastering computer skills. the argument that computers are becoming more and more important so the kids should use it at younger ages. they argued that at a  young age  children would be able to bring this  to higher education I believe that con should win because their argument was solid in that at childhood kids shouldnt be worrying about how to operate a computer or rely on other machinery to do the work for them because when they are faced with a problem and they arent allowed to use that machinery then they will be helpless. Ruslan said that computers last a longtime and can help different subjects such as music and art. If too much is spent on computers for children then they will loose the ability to do simple mathatmatics. I think the pro won it because the more spending the schools do for computers the more the computer can hekp out the students who need the compuuters the most. For regards to this issue I feel that this is a no brainer and that schools should defintitley spend more money on computers used for in elementary education. Just look at these past few years the SAT'S are changing and there are way more standarized tests that kids need to take nowadays. I believe with both matthews and laurens post and they both absolutely correct. Studies have shown that students who work on computer get higher test grades. The argument that persuaded me is the argument that stated that money is cut off from field trips, music, art, books, recess and other things that benefit the children. Schools should spend more money for computers because it is more beneficial for the child's learning experience.  It will provide them knowledgable information, and help adapt them to the new technology being created in the world.  Computers are known to increase class participation, and will help the child learn more quickly and easily. tha comment about kids need other things that are more benificial at a younger age and some schools cut down on that when they spend more money on computers.

  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.	13.333334%	86.666664%
	Con won - arguing that companies monitoring e-mail within a company should be illegal.	80.0%	20.0%
	There was no discussion on this topic	13.333334%	86.666664%

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 3 Unanswered Responses The argument that email should be treated like mail so its illegal to be tampered with. The argument that swayed me to be on this side was the connection to monitering email and UPS opening your package.  I agree that privacy is expected and should be provided. simple fact that it is legal shows some  legal entity agrees Richard said it is an invasion of provacy without informing their users of monitoring their e-mail. Even though people work for the company the fact still remain that invading someone email is invasion of privacy. The monitoring of any mail is illegal, therefore e-mail should be illegal as well. Companies should not be allowed to monitor an e-mail because they would be allowed access to personal information.  It should be illegal in order to provide to recipient with a sense of security and not allow a company to view other e-mails.  The sender should not be allowed to inquire other information about the person without their permission. I think companies monitoring e-mails should be illegal.  I think it is a complete invasion of privacy and it should not be done under  any circumstance.  (Unless however, there is a potential threat) I believe that even though that it may be legal for the company to open an employees email it should be illegal for the company to do so. It breaks the privacy of the workers in the office and keeps there lives in the confidential rather than everyone in the office knows our buisness. I agree with steven's and emilios post as regards to confirm this. I believe that the con side should win because it is an invasion of privacy as they said.  There is no way getting around the fact that they are monitoring other peoples private things.  It would be as if the post-office went through people's mail. I voted this way because I think if your going to use a certain email account you always agree with their terms of privacy and I think it states that it is legal for them to monitor emails for things such as viruses and stuff. It should be illegal because it invades your privacy. I joined with Richard Moskal's argument. I also think it is illegal company's screening peopel's email without their permision.  It's true it's an invasion of privacy.

  Question 9

  Multiple Answer

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	26.666668%	73.333336%
	Con won: Parents should NOT restrict their teenagers from using myspace.	6.666667%	93.333336%
	There was no discussion on this topic.	53.333336%	46.666668%
	There was no discussion on this topic.	26.666668%	73.333336%

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 6 Unanswered Responses Its up to the parents to mke the decisions to keep the kids save there was no discussion on this topic but if there was i would vote that parents should be able to regulate their teenagers from using myspace up to a certain age such as 16 which is the minimum age that one can be registered on myspace even though there are ways around it like lying about your age. There was no discusion but I beleive that this is a family issue. there was no disscussion There was no discussion on this topic. no discussion I think Pro won. I think parents should restrict their teenagers from using my space, if they are using "my space" bad way.  Parents should restrict their teenagers from using myspace because the child provides the internet world with very personal information.  Their are many young children using this website and allowing strangers to know where they live and how old they are.  This is very dangerous for the child and the family.  Parents need to start monitoring the sites their child accesses. No discussion THere was no discussion for this topic I believe parent's should restrict their children from using myspace.  I do not think children should be providing their personal information on the internet.  A lot of children place important personal information on their myspace which could be accessed by anyone else on the internet.  Therefor, this endangers the child's safety and their parent's should make sure that nothing private is on their child's myspace.