Category: A10: Rebuttal Argument

Rebuttal rewrite – Jonhjelly

The microchip/RFID chip is new latest technology in the our world today. The microchip is a device that has the capability of changing the work place and creating the perfect work environment. But this can also create a terrible work environment because of the condition the workers will be put under. This device has been put in place at certain business for both employees/customers to monitor them. The head of the companies that are placing this devices can use them to monitor all of our movements and track whether their employees have been attending their jobs on time or have they been slacking off. Another reason why  employers have been placing this devices into there employees because they wanted to find a new way to increase productivity in their workers. But this could also cause an opposite affect to their workers. The device can estimate the workers ability to complete a task “” This microchip device can increase productivity because of its programming “using the information transmitted from the RFID tags as well as other factors, such as employee location, employee skills, and expected processing or handling time for the goods.” Stated in that article “Methods, systems, and media to improve employee productivity using radio frequency identification”. The device is a machine calculating numbers but a machine can be wrong. It can under estimate people or overestimate people and send the wrong person to the job. Causing even less productivity because the wrong person can be sent to do a job that they are not ready for. Another reason why the this microchip can cause a big uproar in the work place is the constant monitoring. This can be a big problem for some people privacy is a big issue for them.  Being that the employee has a constant eye on their workers. But not just in work but also out of work. They have constant tabs on our constant whereabouts. This could lead to stalking for the boss if there are obsessed with one of there employees. They could just long into the systems microchip that allows them to see all of their movements  and if they wanted to they could harass them or worst.

Another problem that the device could present if other people obtain he device the can read the RFID chip they can get hold of your information. According to the article “Should people agree to use the Identity chip” is states “without a doubt, privacy and security concerns are the main disadvantage with identity chips. Theoretically, anyone who possesses an RFID reader will be able to obtain your ID number. In turn, they may be able to use this ID number to access the records linked to the number.”(5). Now there is a high risk of a person stealing  your information of their  phone because they are password protected. If a person obtains RFID/microchip  reader than all the would have to be within a certain range to gain the id number. According to this article titled “RFID frequency ranges” the ranges of the RFID chip can “read range of such a tag can be around 3 to 6 or even 8 meters.” Meaning they would only have to be within that range and then they can have the access to their information. This could lead to serious problems with in the companies. In order to stop this problem from occurring they would  have to have a restriction on who has access to the RFID chip reader.

 

Work Cited

Centrenational-rfid.com. (2017). RFID frequency ranges. [online] Available at: http://www.centrenational-rfid.com/rfid-frequency-ranges-article-16-gb-ruid-202.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

Post, G. (2017). Should people agree to the use of identity chips?. [online] Startup Dope. Available at: http://startupdope.com/people-agree-use-identity-chips/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2017].

 

 

Rebuttal – college girl

Although tons of people care about the acts of police brutality and the effects it has on young black men, others seems to think differently. When the topic of police brutality is brought up in conversation, some seem to speak so soft about the topics, when in reality, it’s something that is effecting our nation as a whole. Our recent president, Barack Obama saw this effect, and decided to take the necessary steps in helping young black men, providing them with support and guidance to help them with their future. Not only did he want to help them with their future, but to help them realize that there is more to life than what is actually happening with police brutally, and not to let that act of violence, stop them from believing that they can make a change.

There have been many cases where white police officers get away with police brutality against black males. When people try to talk about it, the conversation either gets really heated or just extremely soft, soft meaning the people who are discussing the act of violence, don’t really care at all about it. In a recent article, the author said that urban communities are not a mess only because of police, but other things too! This does not make sense. In fact, police are the reason why urban neighborhoods are the way they are now. Police officers make the black communities feel like they have to be on edge when they come around. Their scared, nervous and intimidated. Something can happen at any moment in time with a police officer and a black male, whether they are doing something good or bad. Some people in this world just take police brutality so likely when it actually really is effecting the world we live in.

Barack Obama is making a change to this problem though. He his helping the young black communities create a place where their young men can have guidance and support in fulfilling their dreams. He is making it a point to make it a point to them that their is something bigger in this world then what they are seeing everyday within their communities, between violence, drugs, and other things in that nature.

Works Cited

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/13/why-are-conservatives-soft-on-police-brutality/

Rebuttal–todayistheday

We are told, at a young age, to never talk with our mouths full. Jim McBain and Brad Andrews ignore that pleasantry and common formality; their mouths overflow with well-constructed lies. Jim McBain, director of veterinary medicine at SeaWorld and Brad Andrews, vice president of zoological operations at SeaWorld, released a detailed pro-captivity statement during the time Keiko, the star of Free Willy, was in the public’s attention.

The 1993 Warner Bros film, Free Willy, sparked a national outrage over the injustice of keeping orcas captive. The family friendly film highlighted the special bond between a teenage boy, Jesse, and a young majestic orca named Willy. Audience’s hearts warmed and they rooted for a happy ending for both Jesse and Willy. The movie ends in bitter happiness, Jesse succeeds in freeing Willy to reunite with his family. As much as Jesse loved Willy it was only right for Willy to return home.

When released the film inspired thousands of people to strike against marine parks that keep orcas captive. The viewers were determined in freeing Keiko, the figurehead of captive imprisonment, and that frustrated marine parks such as SeaWorld.

Viewers wanted Keiko to have the same happy ending Willy did, they wanted Keiko to be free. McBain and Andrew want imprisonment.

McBain and Andrews are well-educated and successful individuals who make a hefty salary each year at SeaWorld.  Their experience and knowledge of SeaWorld would be invaluable if it wasn’t flooded with lies and half-truths.

In their PBS announcement, McBain and Andrews defend SeaWorld and its commitment to love and care for their orcas. It is obvious they care, but they care for the money orcas rake in rather than the orcas themselves.  If you took the profit away, SeaWorld would be quick to sell their orcas.  Money over matter.

McBain and Andrews start their defense by justifying captivity for the sake of education.  As we grow and urbanize we should find ways to stay in touch with nature.  They claim it is irrational for every person to experience nature by going out into the wild.  They claim it is more beneficial to drag animals to us rather than go to them.

They calculated how many people visit SeaWorld yearly and crunched some numbers to see the consequences of those people visiting “Robson Bite” instead. There would be over 2,000 boat trips a day, which to McBain and Andrews would be “ludicrous”. What is truly ludicrous is that they couldn’t bother to spell the location, they’re referring to, correctly. Its correct spelling is Robson Bight which promotes experiencing the majesty of orcas in the wild.  They don’t use boats to observe orcas, they use kayaks to avoid endangering orcas with boats.  McBain and Andrews don’t provide numbers to refer to, to ensure their creditability.  It is highly unlikely all SeaWorld goers would flock to one orca sighting location while dozens exist.

McBain and Andrews claim in the PBS announcement, we’d “destroy what little habitat is left by trying to do that.” They seem to be repressing the fact that SeaWorld destroyed natural habitat to build their marine prison. They choose to crucify getting informed of animals naturally and praise artificially learning about animals.

McBain and Andrews believe people need to be educated and connected with animals. We all agree it is important to appreciate, understand and value the animals we share the planet with.  It is crucial to witness the strength, beauty, and intelligence animals in case, for us to understand our human lives are not the only ones that matter.  SeaWorld teaches the opposite lesson under the guise of education.  SeaWorld doesn’t teach truth.

SeaWorld also claims they appreciate the social and familial bonds orcas have with their family.  Yet, they built a company of the deed of ripping young orcas away from their families. They advertise they keep a mother and her baby together because in the wild an orca stays with her mother her whole life.  Behind closed doors, babies are ripped away from their mothers and moved to different parks to benefit breeding programs.  It’s an endless cycle of pain, but they don’t inform their guests of those facts.

SeaWorld’s website claims that their orcas live life spans equal to those in the wild. Wild orcas thrive in the open waters of the wild for an average of 60 years. Some, on record, prosper for over a 100 years. SeaWorld’s orcas perish at 13. The expiration date is cut down over 40 years. SeaWorld robs orcas of their lives.

McBain and Andrews seem to have good intentions when they strive to have education and connection to animals without destroying habitats. They should take off their rose-tinted glasses and see the damage SeaWorld inflicts. More than habitat is destroyed, lives are devastated.

McBain and Andrews claim that “over 90 percent of the American public feels that what zoos and aquariums are doing the right thing.” I searched to find validation for this statistic.  I found only one survey from Debate Organization, that showed only 41 percent of people believe zoos and aquariums are doing the right thing.

Majority of people see through SeaWorld’s façade and recognize it for the sham it is.  Now, it is time for SeaWorld to recognize their faults and take accountability for the damage they has done.

SeaWorld is not educational.  One cannot force feed lies and label them as education, its blasphemy. “If want a public that’s knowledgeable about wild animals and some sensitivity about them, if we want our children to have a chance to see many of these animals, it’s gonna have to be places like SeaWorld.” SeaWorld doesn’t provide the public with knowledge, they provide entertainment.  They also aren’t educating the public on “wild” animals, these orcas were stripped of being wild. Once they were dumped in those tanks they became captive orcas. There is a strong distinction between wild and captive, one is free and the other is a prisoner.

SeaWorld recognizes its company as a place where people can gain sensitivity towards animals.  Sensitivity is an ironic word for McBain and Andrews to choose.  SeaWorld is the opposite of sensitive, they ripped orcas from their families to make a profit.  They ignore the blood on their hands and shove the skeletons deeper into the closet.

Regardless of the corrupted truths SeaWorld chooses to ooze out from the closed doors, the message they convey is that we should be allowed to do what we want, if we make a profit. SeaWorld promotes inflicting pain to make a profit. Children should be taught to recognize and understand imprisoning an animal, depriving them of their natural habitat and sentencing them to a life inside a concrete pool, is wrong. We wouldn’t buy tickets to visit a cotton plantation, watching the slaves work to survive.  We should be horrified at the thought of endorsing such inhumane conditions.

 

 

Works Cited

“The Debate- Pro-Captivity.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service.

“Are Zoos Good (Yes) or Bad (No)?” Debate.org.

Rebuttal -NewEditionLover

“Do We Just Accept Gun Violence”

However guns are not just causing the tragic violence and horrible message that it simply portrays.Guns help by eliminating enemies in time of a real altercations like wars. Any attempt to limit gun ownership, let alone eliminate them, is met with vehement resistance. Guns create an order of protection as  they can be used as a means for a safe haven. The thought of me saying that guns are a good deed may have some cringing on their toes right now.Banning guns would certainly reduce injuries and gun deaths, and we are all in favor of that. An outright gun ban is unlikely, but we could greatly reduce the problem guns pose if we opposed them with one voice.Next to not injure people and not have this stigma on guns authorized users must exhibit to some type of mental illness testing to show that they are well and not sick in the head. According to an article “Mental Illness, Mass shootings, and the politics of firearms” stated that a number of states passed bills that required mental health professionals to report “dangerous patients” to local officials, who would then be authorized to confiscate any firearms that these persons might own. “People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” This quote emphasizes the importance of mental health test and the screening precautions they take to to prevent disasters.

To make this world a safe place again we must not eliminate guns as a whole! To not injure anyone we must further conclude that guns can belong in homes,  can be carried by individual’s, and should  be in use of anyone with special authority. I feel as though we are in a great area of protection and for the most part if we are in direct need we have a lot of assistance to help us in need. Next one condition that can be made is by doing background checks on all participants that are trying to purchase guns.  Guns aren’t safe but if you get a background check this may ensure that you’re not crazy or trying to do something illegal. The article “Everything You Need To Know About Background Checks by Miles Kohrman and Jennifer Mascia states that The overwhelming majority of gun background checks take just minutes to clear the would-be buyer. Only 2 percent result in a rejection because of a disqualifying record in the shopper’s personal history. Although the background checks are concluded we still have some who still might finesse the system still being able to receive the gun.”And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences.” The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.” I believe that with our countries history of gun violence its in the best interest that we put an immediate stop to anyone who seeks or previously seeked psychiatric or some sort trying to obtain any kind of firearm no matter what it is.

If we keep more guns away then there will be less deaths! Gun Violence in the United State’s is one of the most causing leads of death’s today. If guns were safer then more people would be getting injured or killed less. My father was killed July 1 ,2011 to gun violence. In addition the man who was accused of shooting and murdering my father was not authorized to be carrying a firearm and the gun was pronounced stolen. In this case of a stolen gun this man never had to go through the stages of getting a background check. Next this causes many of new theories in my head ,just like this man there are other people  who always find ways to get whatever they need in the moment. Since the man accused of the murder was one under the age to own a gun permit that should of raised a flag from whatever person that he purchased the gun from. Although Camden may be dangerous to some people it is a great home and can teach you a lot about this so called world we live in. It was about one am as my father drove the streets of Haddon Avenue in the Park side area as he was approached to a 20 year old man with a gun. My father defended himself to the best of his abilities as he fought to stay alive. In addition some may state it was a weird timing for your father to be out that late ,which it was and I will never know why he was out that late but he was. My father was reportedly shot 12 times and his death approached within a few hours later. Now I must say. how did at the time 20 year old Denzel Satterfield get a authorized weapon ? Things like this make me question the system of background check and other policies that we enforce so heavily in our state. In addition cops concluded that Denzel was not of the age requirements to have an authorized weapon or was never given a background check. Next this shows how many people who are criminals slip through the system everyday and do not need background checks to make them a gun holder.

Guns can be very safe if used correctly! Guns were typically used for military and war purposes to fight battles and other such things.”But the difference between guns here and guns elsewhere is that here in America, they are constitutionally protected. “The constitution declares that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” In addition back in the day guns were needed and there was never really a policy or law on why people had guns. Next but now that the law of guns is more complex there is a problem. Later guns were used against our rivals and keeping our country safe as far into keeping and remaining a free country. Guns could be safe and a way to better justify it is if you want to use a gun then I further hence you to join the army or a place some other type of legal action that will continue fighting for the United States Of America. This wouldn’t be an discussion if people were fighting for us but instead they are fighting and killing each other. Now for instance if guns were used the correct way the world today would have less of a problem with guns because it would be seen as a positive reinforcement instead of a negative sight.

Guns have been around for decades and may have good and bad intentions but we have to protect the country in ways that people are know using them for ,but people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase guns in bulk. Bulk Gun Purchases article concludes that “Laws limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase within a certain time frame help reduce the number of guns that enter the secondary market—weapons that are more likely to wind up at the scene of a crime. Commonsense regulation of bulk gun purchases is an easy way to reduce gun trafficking and, in turn, gun violence.” In addition this  quote emphasizes what I’ve been stating throughout the entire paper , reducing the number of guns once is permitted to have makes a better environment so gun violence is prohibited or prevented in general. Next the limit of firearm are doomed to be lower and show that fewer guns are traced back to crimes. In comparison to the article by Giffords Law Center state that sixty six percent of guns were recovered in New Jersey New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

Furthermore Federal law does not limit the number of guns a person may buy in any given time period. However, federal law does require federal firearm licensees (“FFLs”) to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF and other specified law enforcement agencies. This reporting requirement was created to enable law enforcement to “monitor and deter illegal interstate commerce in pistols and revolvers by unlicensed persons,” though there is no federal requirement that law enforcement actually investigate illegal trafficking.” which connects back into the theory that multiple purchases are not accepted as they may come off as a criminal act. In addition this reinforces the positive message that illegal actives will not be tolerated and this all together will prevent gun violence all over the country.

Works Cited –https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-guns-in-United-States-culture

Rebuttal Argument– Splash305

Suicide Among Cops and FBI Agents

Many people who work in this kind of field deal with many mental stressers. Many of police officers and FBI agents get so overwhelmed with the things going on in and out of the work place, they can’t seem to find healthy ways to deal with them. In most cases when cops feel the need to commit suicide because of whatever they having going on they can’t deal with, they often do it in directly. They will have another cop shoot and kill them. As explained by Elizabeth A. Arias she gives us a specifice case study where this took place. A 36-year-old Caucasian male (A.A.) drove into a local convenience store to obtain gas for his car. He put $11.75 worth of gasoline in his vehicle and drove off without paying. A civilian followed A.A. and persuaded him to return to pay for the stolen gas. Police officers had already been called to the scene and upon A.A.’s return to the store, they approached him while he was still in his car. He refused to speak to the officers, backed his vehicle up, nearly striking two other officers, and began what turned into a high speed chase. During the chase, A.A. drove recklessly, reaching speeds up to 100 mph, and several times turned off his headlights and turned on a blue strobe light. Deputies attempted to block the vehicle several times, but A.A. managed to elude the roadblocks. The chase ended after about 10 min. When the officer’s approached A.A.’s car, he exited his vehicle with a thermos in one hand and a 0.45 caliber semi-automatic handgun in the other. After he pointed his weapon at an officer, he was fatally shot. It was later determined that A.A.’s gun was not loaded. Inside the thermos were several bags of cocaine which police believed were stolen from the police evidence room.

A.A. had previously served as a sheriff’s deputy for 13 years, but at the time of the incident—and for the prior 5 years—he was an identification and evidence technician for the local police department. On the day of the incident, he was off-duty and was driving a police department van with the police decals removed. It is not clear whether he was the one who removed the decals. The van and A.A.’s use of the blue strobe light led officers to believe that the suspect they were chasing was indeed a police officer. Of importance is that all local police officers were allowed to get free gas directly across the street from where A.A. stole it, which suggests his motivation for creating the incident.

In the months preceding the deadly encounter, A.A. spoke with his supervisor about his financial hardships: mounting bills, growing debt that was covered with borrowed money, maxed out credit cards, and a re-mortgaged home. Approximately 2 weeks prior to the incident, A.A. told his supervisor that his wife had incurred even more debt and he felt increasingly depressed over the situation. Other police officers who were in contact with A.A. on the day before the shooting did not observe anything remarkable. He had no psychiatric history and had always been in good standing with the police department. Although a toxicology report was positive for cocaine and amphetamines at the time of his death, A.A. had never failed a drug test with the department.

 

Works Cited

Arias, Elizabeth A., et al. “Police Officers Who Commit Suicide by Cop: A Clinical Study with Analysis.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25 Aug. 2008, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00861.x/full.

Rebuttal Argument—Yoshi

The Police Problem Isn’t A Police Problem

P1. Overall, more white people than black people are killed in police shootings because, in America, there are nearly one hundred and sixty billion more white people than black people. But when the population is proportionalized black people are twice as likely to get killed over white people. The killings, according to data, are not a racism problem. The problem here is that America has a violence and gun problem causing many police to walk around in fear.

P2. In 2014, U.S. residents committed more than 14,000 murders along with about 1.15 million other violent crimes. 68% of the homicides were caused by firearms. This is not surprising; considering there are 300 million guns owned by residents of the United States. This raises the concern that police should often fear their own lives considering, most of the people they encounter are in fact carrying a weapon on them. Not only that but police are usually in a crime ridden areas, trying to diminish the crime rate. So this stirs up the thought that black people are killed more often than white people because of the impoverished areas they live in; which make it more likely for a police to encounter a black person over a white person.

P3. Although this is a good point they are not necessarily true. The Virginia Police Department conducted a study of what red flags police look for before stopping someone at a traffic stop. The study determined whether the police stopping the victim had anything to do with race or socioeconomic factors. The three finding the study found was Virginia Police Officers stopped people based of off the crime rate in the neighborhood, the searching was determined from the percentage of the black population, and the percentage of stops that ended in an arrest was an impact of both the percentage of Black population and the crime rate of the area. This racial bias is not only apparent in the Virginia Police Department’s study, but also in New York City’s racial biased “stop and frisk” program. The Stop and Frisk Program was designed to allow police officers to stop anyone that they deemed suspicious. During the first three months of this 83% of the people that ended up being stopped and frisked were minorities. Leaving only a maximum of only potentially 17% white people being stopped which is tremendously less. This study speaks loudly on the very obvious targeting that happens from police.

P4. There is also the claim that black people are more likely than white people to flee from police, resist arrest, and attack police. When put in life or death situations police have only a couple seconds to determine whether or not they should shoot. In some cases police officers should shoot, but they react too late; and in other cases police officers shoot for the wrong reason. Many Americans believe it isn’t fair to name police as racist because they are put in tough situations where sometimes it is hard to always make the right decision. Josh Correll, a psychology professor from the University of Colorado, ran test with a video game. His findings showed police officers avoid shooting unarmed targets of all races, but as soon as they were allowed to shoot they would shoot more quickly against blacks suspects over white ones. This shows that officers do display some racial bias in shooting suspects.His research found that the public and police are less likely to view black people as “innocent.” In another study of Cornell’s, police officers and people of the community were challenged to make fast impulse shooting decisions with speed and accuracy. The data from both groups of people showed a racial bias in the speed of their shooting. The police and community members shot more black targets than white targets, and the police and community members shot so fast that it was deemed an instinct.

P5. America has had a problem with racism for centuries now. Everyday black people have to overcome their racial-based discrepancy in schooling, employment, economic status, etc.. Black people are more likely than white people to be unemployed, less likely to finish high school, and more likely to live in poverty or go to jail. A study done by a sociology major, shows that employers are less likely to hire someone with “Black sounding names” than someone with a “white sounding name” even when their applications were identical. Similarly enough, only a racial bias can explain why a white man with felony charges is more likely to get an interview than a black man with the same qualifications and a clean record. Even black children get treated unfairly compared to white kids. Tamir Rice for example a little boy that was playing with a gun, at the park that had an orange tag on it. The orange tags indicates that the gun is a toy gun. The officer shows up to the park and within two seconds the officer shoots Tamir Rice, leaving him dead at the park. In the same instance two boys from Ohio were playing on the street with BB guns. The police was called but this time they did not see an orange tag on the boys gun. The officers did not draw their weapons on the two boys. Instead, the officers approached the boys and arrested them. The same incidents in both situations, but the single black boy with a specified toy gun was killed in two seconds; while the two white boys were calmly approached and arrested.

P6. Black people are seen as a threat in not only police related situations, but also in communities. Yes, white people are shot more often than black people, but that doesn’t account for the 160 billion more white people in the world. Yes, black people get shot more because police are usual in crime ridden areas; so there are more encounters with black people over white people; but the reason they do get shot is because of the racial bias police have implemented throughout their training and work life not because they are doing something wrong. Research shows that police officers gain a cognitive bias based on their instinct. Police are more inclined to shoot at black males over white males even if the reasoning is the exact same.

Works Cited

Brooks, Rosa. “America’s Police Problem Isn’t Just About Police.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 5 Jan. 2016.

Juzwiak R, Chan A. Unarmed people of color killed by police, 1999-2014. Gawker. 2014. Available at: http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349. Accessed March 30, 2015.

Adams, Kenneth, Geoffrey P. Alpert, Roger G. Dunham, Lawrence A. Greenfeld-Garner, Mark A. Henriquez, and Patrick A. Langan. 1999. Use of Force By Police: Overview of National and Local Data Series [Research report]. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12269/full

Kyle Wagner. U.S. Police Shootings Database, http://goo.gl/Su60Cm; 2014. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016805275675

Klinger DA. On the Problems and Promise of Research on Lethal Police Violence: A Research Note. Homicide Studies. 2012;16(1):78. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088767911430861

Black, D. (1976). The behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016805275675

Rebuttal Argument-LifeisSublime

Our government doesn’t care to help the people it was built to serve.  Looking over the healthcare system in progress makes that statement more true because it become proves the point that everything the government sets out to do it for money. The other side of this argument would be that the government does help it’s people, and the healthcare system is there to help us; that side is wrongly mistaken on morals though if that’s the case.

The healthcare system currently being used by American’s all around the country is relatively new. It was put in place by Trump shortly after taking office; he changed the policies, prices, and name to what was initially ObamaCare. Newly name, TrumpCare doesn’t provide healthcare for all, but only for people who could afford it. Along with all the other bills people need to pay, healthcare insurance premiums have skyrocketed making it almost impossible for families to make enough to have it.  For people who then decide not get health insurance, maybe to cut out that monthly bill, and then happen to admitted into the hospital will have a surcharge of more than 30%. What the point is is that most of this is all for those dollar bills to multiply and grow, and at what expense? The expense of the people that the government has vowed to serve, their people getting sick and dying because they don’t make enough to live a stable life. Money over morals, and if you ask me that’s pretty messed me, because people should never be compared to money.

 

Work Cited

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14226/9-biggest-problems-trumpcare-aaron-bandler#

 

Rebuttal Argument

In more cases than not, taking a knee is a sign of great respect. This is not only seen in ancient societies, such as the knighting of an individual in England, but also seen closer to home, on the playing fields that Americans love so dearly. For example, when a player is injured on the field of play, many players from both sides will kneel out of respect, but never in sports do you see kneeling as a sign of disrespect. That is until during the playing of the National Anthem; Colin Kaepernick so boldly knelt for the playing of our National Anthem before the preseason game at Levi’s stadium in San Francisco, California.

There has been a lot of controversy over Kaepernick’s debacle, and rightfully so. It seems that the United States as a country has become divisive with a majority of white Americans and military supporting families protesting Kaepernick’s actions. In contrast, a majority of the black American population support his stance and the black lives matter movement backs Kaepernick one hundred percent. Realistically Kaepernick’s explanation of his actions was vague in the   post-game interview. Kaepernick alluded to his position; however, he never fully expressed in that interview that his protest sheds light on police brutality against black Americans. Kaepernick only stated that his people were oppressed, they are killed in the streets, and their killers are rewarded with paid leave for murder. One can conclude that he protests police brutality, but Kaepernick never completely explained his protest, in his much sought after interview.

Kaepernick’s protest poses absolutely no effect on law enforcement officers, who killed 223 black Americans in the year following Kaepernick’s protests according to data released in a Huffingtonpost article. The same article goes on to say that “It’s likely that more black people were killed by police during that period of time” [from the time of Kaepernick’s protest to the end of the year].   This can only conclude two things; blacks felt more empowered; therefore,  more willing to test police officers because of the protests and to be known as martyrs, or that police officers exerted more force to show that the protest will not affect them in any way.

The United States has a problem with police brutality considering incidences such as the Philando Castile murder, the shooting of Michael Brown that lead to the Ferguson riot, and Eric Garner, a man choked to death in the streets of New York City. These occurrences were all the work of our law enforcement officials. As much of a problem that police brutality poses, there has also been an extreme increase of black on black crimes since 2016, when the protest was started. An article by the New York Post released the FBI crime logs for the year of 2016, and stated that black on black crimes rose in number by nine hundred compared to 2015. Black Americans are simply ignoring the outrageous number of the murder of their own kind, by their own kind, and focusing on a very small percentage of killings between law enforcement officers and black Americans. Some black Americans will also ignore the fact that black males have made up forty- two percent of cop killers in the last ten years, as stated by New York Post. Police officers now fear for their lives because of the drastic increase of police murders at the hands of black men is significantly higher. A study from National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago concludes that “half of all Americans, regardless of race, say fear caused by the physical danger that police officers face is a major contributor to aggression against civilians.”While cops fear for their lives in the line of duty,  there is still no reason for the killing of innocent black Americans, like Philando Castile, or any Americans for that matter, by police officers.

When traveling most parts of the country, one observes cops patrolling towns daily and writing the occasional traffic violation. In other parts of the country, like the deep south, where oppression of black Americans still appears alive and well, one will see some, not all, cops using their power in a negative way. These cops are the ones that give all cops a bad name by trying  to instill fear into civilians and abusing the power that they were given to “protect and serve.” This display of police brutality demonstrates racial tensions in the southern states that remain in place in America fifty years after turmoil for equality ravaged the country. With roots from slavery in the deep south, the southern states tend to be more racially prejudice than other areas in the country, possibly due to the antiquated rationale that blacks are slaves and plantation workers, never died.

The 2016 presidential election map shows a majority of the republican voters in southern states (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Florida) who are predominantly white individuals. These white citizens of the deep south historically have roots to plantation owners, who owned land, which represented wealth and power. These white plantation owners needed slaves to work the fields and harvest crops such as cotton. Some slave owners passed down their land along with their opinions of black Americans on to future generations.  Even though slavery was abolished in 1865 with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, the racism and prejudices that remain at the center of Kaepernick’s debate.

The feud between black and white Americans may never die in the United States. Some radical whites hold on to the traditions of the old south, with the notion of blacks as chattel slaves. Some me blacks will never relinquish of the fact that their ancestors were brutally kidnapped from Africa and forced into American slavery. Either way, slavery is in the past and it is the duty of Americans to move past it through learning the facts and black history. But education itself cannot overcome the prejudices and ignorance to black Americans. Both black and white Americans must learn to cast aside their opinions and respect each other as humans to unite in one great nation.

Works Cited

Donald, Heather Mac. “All That Kneeling Ignores the Real Cause of Soaring Black Homicides.” New York Post, New York Post, 27 Sept. 2017, nypost.com/2017/09/26/all-that-kneeling-ignores-the-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/.

University of Chicago, NORC. “Law Enforcement and Violence: The Divide between Black and White Americans.” Law Enforcement and Violence: The Divide between Black and White Americans Issue Brief | APNORC.org | APNORC.org, http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/HTML%20Reports/law-enforcement-and-violence-the-divide-between-black-and-white-americans0803-9759.aspx.

Waldron, Travis. “Police Killed 223 Black Americans In Year After Colin Kaepernick’s First Protest.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Aug. 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colin-kaepernick-police-killings-black-americans_us_599c4099e4b04c532f447939.

“2016 Presidential Election Actual Results.” 270toWin.Com, http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map.

Rebuttal-Flyerfan1974

Do We Just Change the Helmets?

 

Taking helmets out of football is a very counterintuitive idea itself. It may seem as if this will hurt the players, but in fact it will help protect the players. No helmets will make keep players from taking risky, hard hits, and cause them to have more caution when playing the game. They all will be protected from severe concussions, spinal cord injuries, and developing CTE later in life. There is however, some opposition to this counterintuitive idea. Many people feel as if there would be no change to the amount of head injuries sustained in a football game. They feel as if players will still hit hard, and make risky plays.

Today football helmets are evolving more and more everyday. Great minds are developing technology that will save the game of football. The new Vicis Zero 1 helmet is the latest in state of the arc brain saving technology. With all the brain trauma happening in the NFL, the league was distributed grants for companies to develop better equipment, that company was Vicis. The Seattle company developed the Zero 1 helmet to help the win the war on concussions. The new helmet flexes on contact, instead of the traditional helmet that has a hard outer shell, sort of like a battering ram. The new helmet has the same idea as a car bumper, it flexes and absorbs blows. The Zero 1 helmet also features 4 layers of brain saving protection. These include a lode shell, a core layer, an arch shell, and a form liner. The lode shell is an outer layer that makes contact with other helmets, it consists of bendable plastics. The core layer is made up of hundreds of flexible columns that act like shock absorbers. his layer is the heart of the Vicis helmet, and was developed with the help of Per Reinhall, head of the University of Washington’s mechanical engineering department and a co-founder of Vicis. The columns vary in length and thickness depending on their position in the helmet. They are made up of a resistant polymer that bends in any given direction when bent. It is kind of like a knee or elbow joint. When you jump, your knees absorb the force when you land by bending. In the helmet the polymer bends, absorbing the shock. Under the core layer is the arch shell and form liner. The arch shell is the base of the polymers, while the form liner fits custom to the persons head, adding more protection. The Zero 1 has gone through many test to see if it is safe for our player. These include a drop test where a dummy head in dropped onto an anvil, and a rotation test, where a moving pendulum strikes the helmet form the side. Both tests concluded that the Zero 1 helmet reduced the force of impact from 20-50 percent compared to traditional helmets.  With a helmet like this, the NFL is a lot safer, chances of head trauma are reduced significantly and players minds can rest at ease. The helmet is no longer a weapon, but a vital part of a players padding and safety.

President Trump took many shots at the NFL at his Alabama campaign rally. He slammed  players for kneeling during the national anthem, but he said a particularly disturbing comment. The president suggested that the NFL is being ruined now that they are addressing brain injuries. His exact words were “Because you know, today if you hit too hard — 15 yards! Throw him out of the game. They had that last week, I watched for a coupled of minutes. Two guys, just really, beautiful tackle. Boom! 15 yards. The referee goes on television, his wife’s so proud of him. They’re ruining the game! They’re ruining the game.” He basically said that efforts to make players safe ruins the game.

Helmets may have been upgraded, and made to absorb hits, but they still do the same damage. Risk compensation is when protective equipment prompts individuals to act more aggressively which increases the potential for injury. If you give an individual better protective equipment, they are going to have an increase in aggression, causing more injuries. Before, players with traditional helmets felt protected, so they made more riskier hits, causing more injuries. Now the players will feel even more protective, causing even more riskier hits, and even more injuries. Also even if these helmets are more protective, Vicis said they reduce the force of impact by 20-50 percent. This still is not a solution that will make football 100 percent safe. Players being prompted to act even more aggressively on the field, combined with not 100 percent helmets will even make the game more dangerous. Our efforts are not working, according to the NFL, head injuries have increased 58% since 2014. This proves our efforts are doing nothing, and show we need a huge change in the game.

President Trumps comments were very disturbing at his rally. These players are human beings, they are the same as you and me. We all are humans, we get sick, we all are susceptible to injuries. The president basically is saying that efforts to protect players from early CTE related deaths makes his game watching experience unenjoyable. There are probably many people out there that feel this way, but do not have the means, nor the courage to say comments like this. That is fine, it is their opinion. Here is a way we can all enjoy the game, and our players are 100 percent safe. Take away these weapons, let players not be prompted to take those dangerous hits. Helmets need to be put on the sidelines.

Helmets may be evolving, but as they evolve, they hurt our beloved players. The advancements of Vicis’ Zero 1 helmet only sets player safety 3 steps back. Players are going to act more violent, causing more and more injuries, it is simple logic. Players are still going to make those concussion causing hits, only harder. And with harder hits comes more severe concussions, which leads to a rise in the number of players who acquire CTE later in life, cutting their life expectancy by a significant amount of years. Taking helmets out of football with significantly reduce the number of concussions NFL players experience. This in turn will cause a chain reaction, reducing the amount of CTE in retired players, reducing the number of early deaths in individuals.

 

Stinson, Elizabeth. “This Flexible Football Helmet Wants to Save Your Brain.” Wired, Conde Nast, 3 June 2017, http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-zero1-flexible-football-helmet-may-save-players-brains/.

Hagel, Brent. “Risk Compensation: A.” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, July 2004, journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Fulltext/2004/07000/Risk_Compensation__A__Side_Effect__of_Sport_Injury.1.aspx.

Loria, Kevin. “Trump Suggested the NFL Is Being Ruined Now That It’s Addressing Brain Injuries – Here’s What Collisions Do to Players.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 26 Sept. 2017, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nfl-criticism-concussions-brain-injuries-cte-2017-9.

Vinton, Nathaniel. “Concussions up 58% This Season in NFL Regular Season Games.” NY Daily News, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 29 Jan. 2016, www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/concussions-rise-nfl-league-data-reveals-article-1.2513828.

Rebuttal – theintern

“Every business lies about its ethics” Enron suffered a horrible loss because of their lack of ethics. Enron was a fast growing American energy, commodities, and services company based in Houston, Texas. The company’s worth was $70 billion. Enron was founded in 1985 but then in 2001 they were finally caught by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for knowingly manipulating accounting rules and masking the enormous losses and liabilities of the company. When a company does not establish rules of ethics that company like Enron will no more be in business. If Enron were to play by the rules their company would have still been in business and so would have Arthur Andersen. Enron lied about being ethical we could tell by the profits that Enron was making within a small span of time. Once the company Enron knew that they had made committed too much fraud they tried to cover it up with bringing Arthur Andersen, one of the big five accounting firms in the world. Enron convinced Arthur Andersen to money launder their money but since their profit margins were too high the SEC became very suspicious of this amount of money Enron was profiting. In the business world no one is forced into committing these crimes; Arthur Andersen had the choice to decline the offer from Enron to help them with money laundering but because they had no ethics they joined alliances with Enron. Once Enron fell apart they brought Arthur Andersen down too. Enron went bankrupt because of all the dues and imprisonment of the CEOs and Arthur Andersen was destroyed with the bad reputation that no company wanted them to do check their books.

Corporations find ethics to be a drain on profits; but every corporation claims to promote strong business ethics. Businesses promote that they are truly ethical but how can we believe and trust big time companies when their fraud crime scandals were announced to the business world. Most of the big companies say that they are ethical but in reality there aren’t from what we see on the Forbes website most of the world’s top ethical companies are not the very big ones makes tons and tons of money every year. If we were to trust a company I’d say it would have to be a small one because all the big companies get away with almost anything just like Enron did for 12 years. For example Wells Fargo a well known bank and is one of the largest banks in the United States though it is not on the list and why is that because they created thousands of phony accounts to be able to make a profit and meet their margins. These phony accounts were opened up in several of different customers accounts without them noticing. This was a very unethical action that Wells Fargo employees did, I see it that in this world to more about making profit then having ethics.

Works Cited

That’s exactly what happened to Wells Fargo customers nationwide. “5,300 Wells Fargo Employees Fired over 2 Million Phony Accounts.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network.

Kauflin, Jeff. “The World’s Most Ethical Companies 2017.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 Mar. 2017.

Investopedia. “5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations By CEOs.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 5 Feb. 2013.

Tribune, Chicago. “Ties to Enron Blinded Andersen.” Chicagotribune.com, 12 July 2008,