Jennifer Salane(Yes)
Clemson University

John Hodgson(No)
University of South Carolina

        While what happened at Virginia Tech was perhaps the most tragic thing that I have ever witnessed throughout my college career, I cannot help but put my overwhelming emotions for the victims and their families aside and question what was going on with the security officials during the time of the attacks.  There was clearly not enough done on that campus to protect the rest of the student body. 
      As a college student, I know that if even the slightest thing were to happen on one side of campus, those that were on the opposite side of campus should be informed of it immediately, even if just through email. At my university, our President always emails the student body in response to anything happening, whether it is an alert, simple message, or grievance of some sort, and whether it occurs on our campus or not. 
       Many say that there isn?t much that could have been done between the first shooting and the second - that's bologna.  Anyone who is on a college campus knows that there are police cars patrolling the campus at all times - where were they when the shooting started? Aside from those patrolling in their vehicles, there has got to be on-sight security guards of all sorts located around campus in buildings. If something as serious as someone getting shot occurs, there should be no hesitation on the part of security officials to alert the students, faculty, and other persons on campus immediately. Not only are there campus officials that handle things like this, there are also city officials, which should be prepared to back up the university officials in handling situations such as this at all times.

       The security of the Virginia Institute of Technology was compromised, and now more than thirty students are dead. There is a time for emotion, and that time is now. Still, we cannot become overzealous in the wake of this incident to change the way security runs on college campuses across America - indeed, I do not think it necessary, or even possible, that any changes can be made.
       Let's think about the situation before we start covering our universities in red tape: there was no obvious indication that a shooting would occur. There hardly ever is in this situation. It was a freak occurrence, and therefore does not fall in the parameters of preventable crime. It's not possible to prevent another incident like this without removing the freedoms of college life. My own University of South Carolina is excellently prepared for crime and emergency - fire drills, awareness programs, an ever-available police force, and many more programs help keep me safe. But there can be no measure that prevents a murder or other violent crime past personal responsibility. 
       Sure, we could put in metal detectors, run background checks on all
"questionable" students... we could turn a university into an airport! But these measures only serve to destroy college prestige and give states and colleges an excuse to hike tuition costs more. And this still doesn't solve the problem of a madman.
       College is where the young, like myself, become ingrained in life, and the sad fact is that in life, there are unpreventable tragedies waiting at every turn. College students should take it upon themselves to be safe - the kind of safety that no airport-security measure can guarantee.

John Anderson(Yes)
University of South Carolina

Homa Hassan(No)
Columbia College

In the Middle East, there is hardly any hope left to survive upon.  For ten thousand years, the sands of ancient Mesopotamia have been drenched in the blood of mankind.

          In the current conflict, the nation of Israel and its people are fighting a war that is unlike anything modern civilization has ever seen.  Hezbollah, the cowardly terrorists who kidnap, torture, intimidate and murder civilians and soldiers alike, has forced the hand of Israel.  These animals have destroyed all hope for peace through democratic means because of their single-minded delusions of holy war and glory, and now they are going to pay for it dearly.

            The only thing that Israel can do, and has done so far, is choose the lesser of two evils.  Every nation has the right to defend itself, and going on the offensive into foreign soil to stop these monsters is the only reasonable action left.

            You might say: "We need to talk more.  We need peace.  We need to understand the plight of these people."

            Know this:  These animals, members of Hezbollah, do not listen to talks; there can be no peace without the presence of justice; and the "plight" of a terrorist has been brought about by himself and his own actions.

            The only hope left is not that Israel should stop the war, but that the terrorists who started it are finally eliminated.

Israel's full-fledged bombardment of Lebanon is utterly horrific, bloodthirsty, and inhumane.  Are the lives of two Israeli soldiers, who joined the army aware of the consequences of their service, equivalent to the lives of countless innocent children who have been slaughtered because of the abduction?

How can one rationally argue that Israel's demolishing of Lebanon is a justified and appropriate response to the kidnapping of two military personnel?  President Bush claims that "Israel has the right to defend itself," but how is the massacre of civilians considered defense?

Israel hasn't made itself safer with an assault that has neither crippled Hezbollah nor safeguarded itself from rising anger in the Middle East.  Israel has proven repeatedly that it doesn't distinguish between adult and child when defending its tiny, forcefully acquired piece of land, as can be seen throughout its "defense" against the Palestinians.  The Israeli military has countered Hezbollah's abduction with an unrestrained onslaught.  Doesn't Lebanon, then, also have the right to defend itself against Israeli aggression?

Israeli tyranny and disregard for human life under the façade of "defense" is a clear example and the embodiment of the contemporary term "terrorism."

Dan Fenner(Yes)

          Amidst a flurry of overly concerned media reports propogating the dangers of cyber-stalkers and personal page pedophiles, I cannot help but ask myself; Shouldn't we be hearing about the real news-worthy events taking place these day?  Pardon me if I am out of the proverbial loop here, but are we no longer at war in the Middle East?  Have methamphetamines ceased their stranglehold ont he rural Mid-West?  Has our economy stabilized and our health-care costs as well?  That is what I am led to believe when I read about the dangers of teens with personal websites such as MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, and Friendster.  The mainstream media would have you believe that these online communities are liquid terrorism extract seeping into your home (and what's worse, your children) through your internet connection.

However, the truth is that these personal websites are nothing more than a glorified, user-friendly corkboard. In a world where some parents still will not allow their children to associate with those kids down the street because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, free communication between young people might be what is best for this generation. Maybe its healthy for teens to know someone outside of their small town atmosphere, someone otherwise culturally inaccessible to them.

Parents, I beseech you, ask yourself this question; What came first, the stalker, or the internet? I know it might take a little more work and some actual investigation, but I hope the news media will return to the standard of reporting on news-worthy events.

          Personal websites are in fact a great way to keep in touch with your friends and classmates. However, your perspective changes when you have a forty-year-old "body builder" (receding hair line and severe tooth decay included) sending you valentine e-greetings and asking you to breakfast on your voice mail ? indeed, what seems like harmless Internet fun is, in all actuality (gasp), stalker-haven.

      Websites like MySpace.com allow teens to lie about their age, publicize residential phone numbers and addresses, submit specific after school activities, and even post personal pornography!  Does anyone else see something wrong with this?  The first thing students learn in Kindergarten is not to speak to strangers.  Why wouldn't the same principle apply to the Internet where physical time and space aren't boundaries to protect you?  Meaningin that your information is not only broadcast to the entire werido community in your area, it's also broadcasted to the entire weirdo community in China.

      Some of these websites are simply tasteless. Teenagers should know the difference between expressing themselves and exploiting themselves. If you are going to have an obscene reputation, you don't have to use the Internet to prove it.

The Internet is a scary place, ladies and gentlemen. The threat of predators is real. And while it is certainly one of the main methods of communication for the future, is it fair that someone can conjure a wholesome facade on the web and be a completely different individual in person? The freedom online works both ways  it would be wise to remember that.

Ali Collins(Yes)
Dreher High School

John Hodgson(No)
Dutch Fork High School

       In recent years, especially during the Bush administration, it has been US policy to encourage, and even create, democracy in the Middle East. Isn't that what we have been attempting to do in Iraq? But if we refuse to recognize the Hamas government as legitimate we are directly abandoning this policy.
       The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a free and democratic election. What kind of hypocrites are we in America if we decide to support only those democratic governments that elect the leaders whose policies and rhetoric we approve? 
       Admittedly, Hamas' long standing and oft stated mission is to destroy Israel. But now that they are the legitimate government, Hamas may find that such a position is untenable in real politics. We have no idea how their new position of leadership is going to affect their organization. Doesn't it seem prudent to avoid taking an iron stance and instead, through support and aid, encourage Hamas to adopt a more moderate, sensible position? If Hamas later proves unwilling to change, America can always withdraw support.
       Recent interviews with Hamas supporters indicate that they were elected not because of their stance toward Israel but for their commitment to root out corruption within the Palestinian government. This means that Hamas does not have to maintain its militant goals in order to maintain popular support. 
       Furthermore, Hamas is not simply a terrorist organization. The group is the largest provider of public services in Palestine, including hospitals, schools, orphanages, and charities. These are laudable activities America should support. Not to recognize Hamas at this point would be folly--- something the Bush administration has proven very good at.

       It's true that President Bush has found himself between a rock and a hard place with the election of Hamas as the ruling party in the new Palestinian state. It?s true that Bush said he recognized the need for a Palestinian state, and recognized its right to exist. But no matter what Bush or any supporter of a new Palestine said, the problem remains a problem, and we cannot simply live with the results peaceably.

       Hamas has built their platform on the destruction of Israel.  They do not recognize the right for Israel to exist; the majority of their party does not want peace between Israelis and Arabs.  Hamas sees Israel as an invader that cannot be tolerated in amy amount; they have proven again and again they will not stop terrorist attacks and coercion until Israel ceases to exist.  The few moderates that try to be heard in this cacophony of hatred will be squelched again and again as they have been in the past; the United States has tried to build peace between Israel and Palestine with the actions of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's peace talks, and with Bush's recognition of Palestine, but to no avail.  What can we learn from this?

       We can learn that militant terrorist-supporters like Hamas are not to be trusted, especially when they proclaim loudly their violent agenda.  Bush is right to cut aid to Palestine; call him a hypocrite, but better to be hypocritical then condone the rise of violent government only adding fuel, not water, to the Middle East fire.

Amy Zhang(Yes)
Dreher High School

John Hodgson(No)
Dutch Fork High School

       No one with a conscience condones the actions of Saddam Hussein.  As a ruthless dictator, he turned a blind eye to civil liberties and freedom of press.  He fabricated storeis to sell a suppressed public as propoganda for his regime.  And perhaps most unforgivably of all, he used coercion and torture to extricate infromation from suspects.  Thus, no one with a true concern for this nation and true patriotism can fail to note the hypocrisy in many of our policies in Iraq, though here I will mainly focus on the torture tactics at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. 
       First and foremost, even the most laudable of intentions cannot stop a terrible policy from doing more harm than good.  Torturing people who already had your very existence is not going to yield any useful information.  In fact, the incentive to lie is only increased for how should the interrogators know the difference between fact and fiction?  What results is an avalanche of false information from which any bit of actual truth becomes lost.  Nothing is accomplished, or rather, nothing for the better.  Instead, toturing people who may have been previously indifferent to your existence will not yield new supporters to your cause so much as it will push people to the other side.  
       What we have gained from a policy of torture has not been converts, leads, or victories.  We have gained, however, international ignominy, more extremists, and a stain on the ideals of peace we originally hoped to bring to an oppressed and persecuted people.

       Senator McCain wants to see torture on the enemies of America outlawed. Fine.  I don't think torture is the way we want to present our country to the world. But when the President and McCain push for this bill, they need to outline exactly what an American interrogator can or cannot do. I understand we want to outlaw the kind of torture Saddam practiced on his people - hanging on hooks, electrocution, Iron Maidens, to name a few - but that certainly does not mean we must treat prisoners as dignitaries, or even ordinary people.  Take Guantanamo, where the worst kind of "torture" is someone flushing a Koran down a toilet. Give me a break! 
       Interrogation is conducted with the goal of obtaining information that could save American lives, but if torture is everything, how can we get this information? Soon, interrogators may not be able to put prisoners into solitary confinement, deny them exercise, visits, or other allowances on the grounds that doing so would constitute "cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment." Under vague wording, bad enforcement, and of course the numerous lawsuits and court hearings on what torture is, I could deem sitting through my AP Calculus class as torture! 
       We all know what real torture is, so I won't bother you with the gruesome details. Flushing a Koran isn't torture. Solitary confinement isn't torture. Treating captured terrorists as prisoners instead of visitors is not torture. And if this bill will make it so, then I am against it. 

John Anderson(Yes)
University of South Carolina

Dan Fenner(No)

       Ben Franklin warns us, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The Federal Air Marshals and a growing segment of this countrys population are all too willing to sacrifice their liberties in the name of Homeland Security. After the attacks of September 11^th, the federal Air Marshals were given a $600 million budget and a hair trigger to restore confidence and security to the traveling public. I am not surprised that the first shot fired by an Air Marshal since that time resulted in the death of an innocent and unarmed passenger. Rigoberto Alpizar and his luggage, including his carry-on back-pack, had passed through all of the appropriate security checks. He was completely incapable of possessing explosive materials, firearms, weapons, or dangerous chemical agents at the time of his outburst. Passengers aboard his flight have publicly stated that they never heard him say the infamous B word, nor did they hear him make a threat to anyone while aboard the aircraft. The Air Marshals involved claim that he made mention of a bomb while he was on the jetway, conveniently out of earshot of his fellow passengers. This statement also places Alpizar and his harmless backpack out of range of the aircraft and its passengers. Why then was it necessary to kill a man who had already left his intended victims behind, in complete safety? This trend has to end. At least color-coated warning levels and duck and cover campaigns don't endanger American lives.