But this is the Lakers, and they’re still below .500, with a complicated dynamic of their win-now team being filled with young players that fans have been told are future stars even while they’re still developing, which means that Walton can’t win with his decisions.
Mr Dilon is the best
After reading the article, “Greek Mythology: Sources,”
Can you link to this article? I'd be interested to see what you've been reading.
No one had the guts to raise a riot
This line stands out to me because it reveals that the narrator doesn't see the colonial occupation of Burma as something that physically threatens the safety of Burmese dissenters. He thinks that the citizens are weak because they don't fight back. He doesn't consider that a riot would be quickly dispatched by the European occupying force.
Showing up to work, attending class, completing homework and trying my best at sports practice are expected of me, not worthy of an award.
This may be the only concrete example from her life that this author uses.
I call this "anecdotal evidence."
I believe that we should change how we reward children. Trophies should be given out for first, second and third; participation should be recognized, but celebrated with words and a pat on the back rather than a trophy.
This is her solution. Her claim also states the problem in this case.
If every soccer player receives a trophy for merely showing up to practice and playing in games, the truly exceptional players are slighted.
I think this is reasoning after all.
Trophies used to be awarded only to winners, but are now little more than party favors: reminders of an experience, not tokens of true achievement.
This is a sub-claim. The argument seems to be in the fashion of "That was then, this is now." Which is a common framing for an argument.
Trophies for all convey an inaccurate and potentially dangerous life message to children: We are all winners.
Even though I have trophies and ribbons, certificates and plaques, all they do for me is remind me of the experiences I had on little league teams.
These are the foundations of a long path to potential success, a success that is not guaranteed no matter how much effort I put in.
This is her reasoning.
This is a nuanced claim because the author is going to argue that trophies send a dangerous message and she is going to argue what message they send. She has to prove both.
We begin to expect awards and praise for just showing up — to class, practice, after-school jobs — leaving us woefully unprepared for reality.
Wrong. I was smart enough to know that when I made JV in basketball as a 8th grader, I probably would never play varsity. The trophies and ribbons didn't confuse me. i wasn't stupid then and I'm not stupid now.
Today the dozens of trophies, ribbons and medals sit in a corner of my room, collecting dust. They do not mean much to me because I know that identical awards sit in other children’s rooms all over town and probably in millions of other homes across the country.
I also have 3-5 trophies and ribbons and they don't mean anything to me.
This author sees a problem with the priority we give to recognizing participation. She says that if we want resilient kids, we should stop trying to soften the experience of winning and losing. Her solution is to educate parents with studies about child psychology.
And for kids with low self-esteem, undeserved praise doesn’t help them, either. Research has found that kids with low self-esteem believe they can’t live up to their own hype, so they withdraw even further.
This is more evidence. I am familiar with research about praise, which is important.
In a longitudinal study, when parents regularly overpraised their children’s performances, their children were more likely to be narcissistic two years later.
More scientific evidence. I would have to follow the link and read the study to see how applicable this is to my debate.
We must focus on process and progress, not results and rewards.
I agree with this. I don't think participation trophies are evil but I also don't think they are important.
(In a study of Gold Medal Olympians, they said a previous loss was key to their championships.)
This is more scientific evidence. I would have to read the study to know how relevant it is to this debate.
Thus letting kids lose, or not take home the trophy, isn’t about embarrassing children. It’s about teaching them it can take a long time to get good at something, and that’s all right.
This is reasoning.
This is a destructive message
I agree this is a destructive message.
If children always receive a trophy – regardless of effort or achievement – we’re teaching kids that losing is so terrible that we can never let it happen.
I disagree that participation trophies send this type of message. I think kids learn at a very early age about winning and losing and they learn that losing is okay at home by the age of 3 or 4.
Therefore, instead of blowing a team’s budget on participation trophies, spend that money on kids’ and coaches’ skill development. Or donate the money to kids who can’t afford the basic equipment they need to develop their own skills.
This strikes me as a compelling argument: the idea that money spent on crappy trophies could be better spent on equipment or coaching that would improve performance. The argument here seems to be that the impact of the trophy is negligible at best, and possibly negative.
Some claim that constant awards improve children’s self-esteem, and, once kids have high self-esteem, they’ll achieve more.
Are these the claims on the other side of the argument? If not, this is an example of a "straw man."
A recent study found if parents thought failure was debilitating, their kids adopted that perspective. If parents believed overcoming failure and mistakes made you stronger, then their children believed it, too.
Who studied this connection between parenting and attitudes about failing? What methods did they use?
She resolves it by marrying Alex,
Who is Alex?
Once Clinton conceded the race to Trump, many Flint residents became uneasy.
One of my favorite books is John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany. The narrator tells the story of Owen, his tiny childhood friend who speaks in a raspy but booming voice, but he does so in retrospect, while living in Canada as an expatriot. The plotline of the childhood friend is interspersed with real newspaper headlines about the Reagan administration. The narrator's response to each of the headlines about Reagan pretty well captions what has been going through my head since Tuesday.
We say to girls, you should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten The Man."
thinks that if girls are bigger they will threaten men
"Because I am a female, I am expected to aspire to marriage," Adichie says. "I am expected to make my choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. Marriage can be... a source of joy and love and mutual support. But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don't teach boys the same?"
Adichie dose not want to be the typical African American women that stays home cooks and does the typical things a stay home mom does.
Now it seems the writer's words have themselves inspired an uptempo feminist anthem from one of the biggest names in pop music.
hey
A companion to "Everyone should be a feminist."
Should public schools test for empathy and resilience.
Is China becoming more competitive? Is technical focus good or bad?
Pokemon Go, virtue or vice
Writing as an assessment measure for college
Facebook's impact on journalism