<p>Has anyone already started? If so, sorry! I couldn't find it. </p>
<p>Sooo... What stance did you take?</p>
<p>I was against posting negative comments.</p>
<p>I said yes
examples: Bad teacher, American Revolution + Dem Ideals, Counter argument to people who would think of hate speech</p>
<p>we should allow the students</p>
<p>i basically talked about how this allows teachers to improve, then how this allows the kids to self asses themselves, and how all this helps the education system. oh also i talked about the bill of rights and our rights, and i think i had a nice concluding sentence, i was like negative comments lead to criticism, then criticism leads to self acknowledgment, then self acknowledgment leads to improvement, and improvement leads to success. imo i thought it was good hahah dont bash me CC</p>
<p>I said that online conversation shouldn’t be resticted. Looking back, I could’ve used some more specific examples, but…whatever. It is what it is. Hopefully, I’ll do better than the 6 I got on my SAT. I’m still ticked about that.</p>
<p>i said no, citing that the Supreme Court has, in the past, limited speech in schools when it is detrimental to the educational environment and certainly being allowed to possibly post libelous comments about teachers on the internet would be detrimental.</p>
<p>Counterargument was exactly what was written in the packet: “it is a student’s right…”</p>
<p>Lol I argued against it saying that it broke trust between schools/teachers/students and reinforced the idea that students should use the easiest outlet available to them…then said the school could develop a system in which people could complain directly to the school, so students would learn to go to the source and would teach students that it’s good to be open to suggestions and growth. It was only like 2.25 pages though 
I write horribly slow</p>
<p>do we have to be for or against the idea or is it ok if we take both sides and explain it well?</p>
<p>I took the position that it was good for students to “critique” their school. I also wrote quote slow… I just made it a bit onto the third page… so only two full pages. My conclusion was pretty weak too. Not my best work.</p>
<p>I talked about how I thought that students should be able to post things within reason, such as not mentioning the teacher’s name or saying something that could get the teacher in trouble</p>
<p>I said students should be allowed to post…and had all my evidence etc.</p>
<p>This is the only thing from this ACT I felt I for sure did well on, and this is pretty much the least important!</p>
<p>I was for it.
I wrote 2.5 pages which is a lot for me, considering I write very small.<br>
My last two scores were sevens, but I only wrote less than a page both times. I’m sure I will improve this time. Unfortunately, based on my science, I will probably NEVER send this score to colleges</p>
<p>I admire those who remember quotes on the spot like that lol…I could never do that</p>
<p>^Ive made up quotes for every single standardized test I’ve taken and I’ve never scored below a 10</p>
<p>^ Yep, I just make up quotes as I go along. As rediculous as this may seem, it works because the ACT doesn’t mark you down for factual errors. This time, I attributed a completly made up quote to one of my “favorite english teachers.” :P</p>
<p>Lololll I made up these ridiculous quotes that were supposed to sound philosophical that I wrote people like Husserl said. </p>
<p>Anyway, I was in support of regulation. I said that there are other legal restrictions on what teenagers specifically can do, that those comments would harm the learning environment, and not only that, the restriction helps the students from being denied from colleges due to inappropriate content posted on the interwebz.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with that at all, but I didn’t want to be in the vast majority of people who I’m sure wrote about freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Yeah, I wrote against regulation, but I tried to steer clear of the freedom of speech issue. I argued that it would be costly to enforce the rule and punish violations of it and that such a restriction would actually harm the learning environment because it would give rise to an fear of being punished for speaking out about stuff. Sort of a straw man, I know, but I guess if there are going to be rules or restrictions it’s sort of implied that there’s a punishment for breaking them. I had another example as well, but it must have not been very compelling because I can’t remember what it was. :P</p>