Category: x Archive Assignments

Ag-Gag Laws: A Resource

For awhile now I’ve been thinking about a particular counterintuitive law, but I haven’t completed my post on it yet. This is a work in progress. Perhaps you’ve heard of ag-gag laws, legislation designed to criminalize journalists who publicize the inhumane treatment of animals on commercial farms and in slaughterhouse. The counterintuitive aspect of the story is that animal respect activists were opposed to a particular law that would make it a crime not to report animal cruelty shortly after witnessing it.

You’ll never guess the grounds on which they objected to that law, but I’ll give you a chance to try. Here’s an article that will help you figure it out.

If you’re looking for help on rebuttals, refutations, and counterintuitivity, this fascinating proposal argument is rich with claims you can try your best to refute.

If you’re not squeamish, you might be able to watch this video shot by clandestine animal rights advocates to demonstrate cruelty inside meat processing plants. I warn you, it is hard to watch no matter how strong your stomach is.

I’ll most likely update this page before Friday. Be thinking about animals, how we treat them, and to what extent we need to be honest about how we produce our food.

Definition Argument-theshocker69

“Assault Weapons”

Many people like to throw around the word “Assault Weapon” a lot. Reporters love utilizing the phrase as a buzzword, that delivers fear into your heart and the hearts of your loved ones. It is tossed around during debates as if nobody really knows the definition of an assault weapon. What exactly constitutes an “assault weapon”?

First we need to define what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is any selective-fire weapon that utilizes an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. In order to be considered an assault rifle, a firearm must be capable of selective fire, have an intermediate-power cartridge with more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle, its ammunition must come from a detachable box magazine, and have an effective range of at least 110 feet. Any weapon that does not meet all of these requirements is not an assault rifle.

To make matters confusing, legislation came up with the term “Assault weapons” in an attempt to rush the idea of fear into certain firearms. Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson explain, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles.'” Assault weapons are usually defined as semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) firearms that have features that are associated with military firearms. A firearm is considered an assault weapon if it is a rifle type, semi-automatic, has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two of the following; folding/telescoping stock, a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, flash suppressor/ threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher.

The M4A1 Carbine is a U.S. Military Service assault rifle. It is fully automatic and fires 950 rounds per minute. Automatic firearms are also called machine guns which were made illegal to sell or transfer in 1986 under federal law.

The Colt AR-15 is sold legally in the United States and is semi-automatic. For the reason that the it is semi-automatic, it fires much slower than the M4A1 does at only 45 rounds per minute which is comparable to other semi automatic rifles. David Kopel explained in the Wall Street Journal, “What some people call ‘assault weapons’ function like every other normal firearm- they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed… Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.” By saying this, Kopel stresses the fact that guns like the AR-15 function just as normally as a hunting rifle does, and does not have the capability to put forward the damage that an assault rifle can create.

Not only do “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 work just like a regular hunting rifle. It also works just like every other gun sold in America; shotguns, ranch guns, and even pistols. However, the design of the gun affects the perception of many citizens who do not know any better. According to a 1998 report by the Violence Policy Center, “The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Much of the population is uneducated on the topic of guns and do not understand the difference between the “menacing” AR-15 and any machine gun.

In 1989, after the Cleveland Elementary School Shooting in Stockton California that left thirty-two injured and five children dead, anti-gun lobbyists and the media began campaigning against AR-15’s and other “military style”firearms which caused the public to believe that these ordinary rifles are as dangerous as fully automatic, militaristic, machine guns. The shooter, Patrick Purdy, used a semi-automatic weapon to shoot 106 rounds in 180 seconds. Purdy then took his own life with a pistol, not an assault weapon. These numbers are easily recreateable by any semi-automatic weapon, regardless of the aesthetics of the firearm. The amount of dead and injured children would have skyrocketed had the gun been fully automatic. Although semi-automatic weapons are dangerous nonetheless, to make some of them illegal (although they each posses the same amount of power and danger) based off it’s appearance instead of its functionality is completely erroneous.

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protections Act) which prohibited the manufacturing and civilian transfer, possession, or use of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines for ten years, to expire on September 13, 2004. The NRA (National Rifle Association) opposed the ban, stating the fact, “‘Assault weapons’ are used in only one percent of all crimes,” which was then proven by the Department of Justice in 1999. The act also banned the transfer or possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices, which is defined in the act as, “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after [September 13, 1994] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition,” which is absurd after the realization that many guns typically take more than ten bullets. However, the Assault Weapons Ban incorporated a grandfather clause which holds that possession or transfer of weapons or ammunition that was possessed lawfully before the date of enactment is allowed. This means that while the manufacturing of these guns have come to a halt, the same amount is still on the streets in the hands of people, still holding the power to be abused.

As one can see, an “Assault Weapon” is in no way different than it’s semiautomatic counterparts. Although they may look much more intimidating than most other guns on the market, they do not function any differently. An assault weapon is just as dangerous as the pistol that just barely missed the classification. To make the assumption that they are more dangerous to our society followed by attempts to remove them from the hands of families requiring protection is the most erroneous and frightening portion of the situation. Our government means well, which is why the situation is so counterintuitive.

Works Cited

  1. Anonymous. “The Truth About Assault Weapons.” The Truth About Assault Weapons. Anonymous, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapon.info&gt;
  2. “Assault Rifle.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle
  3. “Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&gt;
  4. “Assault Weapon Truth: The Facts about Assault Weapons.” Assaultweapontruth. Assault Weapon Truth, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapontruth.com.

Nuclear Power Rebuttal Argument

A Price Too High

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Bob Herbert asks the question in the Opinion pages of the New York Times. Is nuclear power worth the risk? It’s pretty clear from the evidence he cites that he thinks the answer is No, it’s not worth the risk (or Yes, the price is too high, if that’s how you phrase the question).

Since he’s willing (sort of) to go on the record with his objections, let’s examine his essay as an opportunity for rebuttal, the better to understand what rebuttal means when it comes time to craft your own essays, days from now.

Insufficient Evidence Rebuttal

Not Effective: It’s not an effective rebuttal to request more evidence from the author.

Why? There would be no end to the requests. Any opponent of any argument could simply refuse to be convinced forever, always claiming that her opponent had provided “insufficient evidence.”

Effective: If the author offers insufficient evidence, or no evidence at all, one good piece of evidence of your own for an opposing point of view can easily refute it. Provide that evidence and you win the argument.

Analogy: Telling your poker buddy that his hand is weak does not entitle you to the pot. You must show your cards. If he has five unrelated number cards, your Ace or your pair of deuces will win.

Irrelevant Evidence Rebuttal

Ineffective: It’s not an effective rebuttal to complain that you really don’t see what the evidence provided has to do with the argument.

Why? Nothing would prevent you from refusing to acknowledge the obvious relevance.

Effective: If the author offers irrelevant evidence, logic should tell you what the evidence does prove, or could prove. Point out that the evidence supports a different conclusion than the author’s.

Inconclusive Evidence Rebuttal

Ineffective: It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that the evidence provided doesn’t quite add up to a proof. If the author offers substantial evidence that doesn’t actually support the argument though, as Bob Herbert does in A Price Too High?, you should be able to identify the logical fallacy at fault.

Effective: Demonstrating how a correct interpretation of the evidence proves something other than the author’s argument is an effective rebuttal. In rebuttal of Bob Herbert’s four-paragraph description of cost overruns, for example, you could say:

Herbert makes a good case for unanticipated costs of building nuclear power plants, but offers nothing to indicate that the higher costs are unsustainable. If the electricity generated by nuclear plants is more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal-fired juice, he should have said so; probably would have said so. If in fact nuclear power is as affordable as traditional electricity, or even cheaper, his fretting about cost overruns is a fruitless complaint without real substance. What’s unimportant is what the cost was projected to be. What’s important is the final cost of electricity generated by nuclear power.

Stacking the Deck Rebuttal

Ineffective: It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that the author is unfair to your “side” of the argument and should offer evidence to support your position.

Why? Because the author has no obligation to present your evidence for you. She may not qualify your evidence as legitimate, and is under no obligation to do so.

Effective: But if the author clearly but stealthily “stacks the deck” by suppressing evidence you know to be legitimate, as Bob Herbert does in A Price Too High?, you should be able to call him on it easily.

Ineffective: You can’t win by pointing out that something’s missing:

Bob Herbert doesn’t mention any advantages of nuclear power besides the elimination of greenhouse gases.

Effective: But you can win by specifying what’s been left out:

Bob Herbert acts as if the only benefit we obtain from nuclear power is reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If that were the case, the price might truly be too high. But he neglects to mention nuclear power replaces unsustainable fossil fuels; makes us less dependent on foreign oil imports; eliminates the mercury, sulfur, and countless other emissions from burning coal, and improves our national security by making us less beholden to Middle East dictators.

False Analogy Rebuttal

Analogy is prediction based on close comparisons. When the comparisons are very close and pertinent, analogy is a powerful argument. But when the similarities between cases are false or irrelevant, the argument fails.

False Analogy: If I’m planning to release The Matrix Revolutions shortly after the outrageous success of The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded, I point out that the new film shares the same writing and directing team, an almost identical cast, and the same subject matter as the first two films. I predict that the third installment in the series will therefore be a huge success. But I’d be wrong.

Why? What one difference made that analogy false? The new actress who played the Oracle? Or the fact that the script was anticlimactic and the audience was already saturated with better material?

False Analogy: When Bob Herbert compares the nuclear disaster at Fukushima with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he emphasizes that they were both almost unimaginable. Nobody could have predicted them, he says. He uses that similarity to prove that a similar nuclear catastrophe could happen here.But he’s wrong.

Why? Surely the fact that Fukushima was unpredictable didn’t cause it to occur.

Ineffective Rebuttal: It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that Herbert “uses false analogy” when comparing Fukushima to nuclear plants in the US. But it’s a start.

Effective: An effective rebuttal of a false analogy is one that points out the essential difference that keeps the third Matrix from repeating the first two movies, or in this case,

The essential difference between Japanese nuclear plants and US plants is that US plants are not positioned as precariously as Fukushima—on massive, active earthquake-prone fault lines just hundreds of feet from the ocean. As long as we avoid the ridiculously inept placement of nukes, Herbert has no business saying that the failure of one predicts the failure of the other.

False Choice Rebuttal

Once a false analogy has been made, almost certainly a false choice will follow.

False Choice: Should we put money into getting people jobs, or should we slash government budgets, putting more people out of work?

Neither alone may be the real answer, but debates are often framed between two such false choices.

True Choice: The third choice, that we should slash the parts of the budget that reduce employment and spend the savings putting people to work, never gets a hearing.

False Choice: When Bob Herbert frames his second question:

whether it makes sense to follow through on plans to increase our reliance on nuclear power, thus heightening the risk of a terrible problem occurring here in the United States

he’s offering a false choice based on the assumption that more nuclear power necessarily increases risk. It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that Herbert “offers a false choice” when asking us to choose energy futures, but it’s a start.

Effective Rebuttal: An effective rebuttal of a false choice is one that points out the unnamed third choice, in this case, that

every new nuclear plant either be built to address all known risks or not be built at all. Another would be to point to countries like France that, unlike Japan, have relied on nuclear power for almost all their energy needs for decades without serious incidents. Do we have to choose between Japan and no nukes? Or could we choose safe nukes?

Causal Argument-Prof2020

9/11 Made America More Racist

It seems that racism has been around since before the dawn of time itself. It has thrived in the best and worst of times and in every corner of the earth, doing particularly well in the United States of America. America’s relationship with racism has been a very long one and it’s still going strong. As if the situation hadn’t been dire enough, then the twin towers in New York City were attacked in an act of terrorism more horrific and devastating than the world had ever known. Whether or not the 9/11 hijackers understood the consequences of their actions is irrelevant. The after-effects rippled outwards and caused further damage more than what anyone could have expected. Fifteen years later, Americans are still dealing with the repercussions of one man’s decision to attack the United States. 9/11 shocked and terrified the world. That day set a new precedent for the future of public safety all over the globe. The TSA was exploding with new rules and restrictions on who and what can be on a plane. Americans become even more wary of anyone who didn’t look like them. The media turned the situation into a joke. Tabloids were printing new conspiracy theories everyday while shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” turned the whole ordeal and those behind the attacks into a punchline. The saddest part is that we had an opportunity to make a comeback. It would have been one of the most difficult things our country had ever done and would have further changed the world forever but we failed to take advantage of our opportunity to find good in the situation. We’ve let the 9/11 attacks define our foreign policies, world relations and even how America functions domestically. Furthermore it’s changed how we relate to others. Our culture had never been particularly welcoming to new elements but more now than ever, we bristle at the idea of welcoming anyone or anything we’re not immediately familiar with. In recent years this reaction has softened, especially with younger generations rising up and becoming more politically aware but the majority of America still holds deeply rooted emotions against anything related to the 9/11 hijackings. The ripple effects of the attacks still continue outward even today. Presidential nominee Donald J. Trump made it a main point in his campaign to assure Americans that he’d place restrictions on allowing muslims to enter our country. Regardless of whether or not his prejudice stems from the attacks, many his voters share this sentiment because of the events of 9/11.

Citations
Rose, S. (2013, September 12). Since 9/11, Racism and Islamophobia Remain Intertwined. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/steve-rose/911-racism-islamophobia_b_3908411.html

Poladian, C. (2015, September 11). The United States After 9/11: 6 Things That Have Changed Since 2001. Retrieved November 09, 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156

White Paper – anonymous

Ignorance; Global Warming’s Ally

A Practice Opening:

The future is closer than we think, and our planet is in imminent danger of becoming an inhospitable place. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have been spiraling downwards into a society that uses its natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Research has shown the amount of green house gases that are being released into our atmosphere has been growing at an exponential rate. Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past 150 years, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels. The developed “Western World” has made some very progressive break-throughs in  moving towards using cleaner energy more consistently. Methods of capturing “Renewable Energy” has become more realistic in recent years. Establishing sites where energy is derived solely from solar or wind is becoming more and more common. It’s efficiency is on the rise and is only getting better with four U.S. cities already running on 100% renewable energy.

Purposeful Summary: 

“MAULVIWALA, India — Desperate to reduce the pollution that has made New Delhi’s air quality among the worst in the world, the city has banned private cars for two-week periods and campaigned to reduce its ubiquitous fireworks during holiday celebrations.

But one thing India has not seriously tried could make the most difference: curtailing the fires set to rice fields by hundreds of thousands of farmers in the nearby states of Punjab and Haryana, where much of the nation’s wheat and rice is grown.”

The burning of crops in countries like India has been a leading source of air pollution for decades, but only until now is it being recognized. Conditions for people living in New Delhi are among the worst in the world as far as air quality goes. The government has set regulations to try and bring emissions to a controllable rate. They include regulations on private car use, bringing large construction operations to the outskirts of the city, and mandating its fleet of taxis and buses use compressed natural gas. All across India’s northern plains affects of the crop burning are being felt, the damage is not caused by a few farms but by hundreds of thousands of farmers setting ablaze all within the same time period.

Working Hypothesis 1:

If we come together in a global effort to halt the progression of global warming it is possible to save what we have left of our earth. The only way this can be done is through cooperation, progressive advocates in the justice system, and ending the corruption that plagues government bodies every where.

 

Causal Argument-yankeeskid6

Since the Treyvon Martin case opened up to the public some odd years ago, the public has heard of more and more “innocent” African American men being killed. This has led to the racial protests and anarchy we are used to today. Although, it is self evident when you look into the statistics that these police officers are not only non-racist but are doing their job at a high level. In an article written by the National Review they used statistics from the Post that said American police had fatally shot 965 people in 2015, 564 of those killed were armed with a gun, 281 were armed with another weapon, and 90 were unarmed. This means that 70% plus cases involving fatal shootings are after an officer is put into danger, defending himself or defending someone else. When it comes to race the common view is that these fatal shootings on the black communities by white law enforcement is normal. However, its only 4% of all fatal shootings performed by officers each year. Then the next most common argument these “Black Lives Matter” protesters us his that though black males only make up 6% of the United States population they make up 40% of unarmed men shot by police each year. the misleading statistics is used to hypnotize the general public without giving out all the facts. Young African American deaths really have nothing to do with race; in fact they sort of bring up a more plausible issue in police force. Everyone talks about racism but never sexism. Those that are classified as criminals or threats are usually primarily male. Police officers rarely ever fire their gun at a female. And the reason mostly black males are fatally shot is simply because general areas with large black populations tend to have high crime/death rates. In the National Review article they said blacks “commit homicide at close to eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined….among males between the ages of 14 and 17, the interracial homicide commission gap is nearly tenfold.”(French pg. 1) Also they said “In 2014, for example, while black Americans constituted only about 13 percent of the population, they represented a majority of the homicide and robbery arrests. 82 percent of all gun deaths in the black community are from homicide. For whites, 77 percent of gun deaths are suicides.”(French pg. 1) Therefore, with years of data and the elements presented it is evident that these cops aren’t out here to target a specific demographic but instead base their watches off the data they are given and unfortunately sometimes the incidents result in death. People make individual choices to break the law it has nothing to do with race. A white man is just as dangerous as a black man.

French, David. “The Numbers Are In: Black Lives Matter Is Wrong about Police.” National Review. National Review, 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429094/black-lives-matter-wrong-police-shootings

 

Jsoccer5’s White Page

Content Description

  • Sources
    • Childhood Obesity Statistics
    • Childhood Obesity Causes and Consequences
    • Sugary Drinks and Childhood Obesity
    • Sugar-sweetened Beverages Initiatives
    • Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the US (2005-2008)
    • Evaluating Sugary Drink Nutrition and Marketing to Youth
    • Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages & Weight Gain
    •  Food Away from Home, Sugary-Sweetened Drink Consumption & Juvenile Obesity
    • Mass Media’s Influence on Knowledge, Attitudes, & Behaviors about Sugary Drinks and Obesity
    • Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Obesity
    • Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks
    • How much is too much?
    • Benefits of Sports Drinks
  • Working Thesis
  • Arguments
    • Ideas
    • Definition Argument
    • Casual Argument
    • Rebuttal Argument
  • Final Research Paper Outline

Sources

Source 1

Childhood Obesity Statistics from CDC

Citation: ”Childhood Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 2016. Web. 30 Nov. 2016

Summary: The Center for Disease Control released statistics based on Childhood Obesity in 2011-2014.

Facts from the CDC

  • The prevalence of obesity has remained fairly stable at about 17% and affects about 12.7 million children and adolescents.
  • Overall, obesity prevalence among children whose adult head of household completed college was approximately half that of those whose adult head of household did not complete high school (9% vs 19% among girls; 11% vs 21% among boys) in 1999–2010.
  • Obesity prevalence was the highest among children in families with an income-to-poverty ratio of 100% or less (household income that is at or below the poverty threshold), followed by those in families with an income-to-poverty ratio of 101%–130%, and then found to be lower in children in families with an income-to-poverty ratio of 131% or larger (greater household income).

Source 2

Childhood Obesity Causes & Consequences

Citation: “Childhood Obesity Causes & Consequences.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 June 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Summary: This article talks about behavior and community involvement in childhood obesity. When it comes to the communities involvement a lot of causes are based around food. At the end of the article it discusses health risks of childhood obesity.

Source 3

Sugary Drinks and Childhood Obesity

Citation: Sugary Drinks and Childhood Obesity. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(4):400. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.16

Summary: This article discusses how sugary drinks can lead to childhood obesity as well as other diseases. It gives examples of what sugary drinks are breaks it down into 4 categories. The article goes over the factors that contribute to this and how they contribute to the cause of other diseases.

Source 4

Sugar-sweetened beverages initiatives can help fight childhood obesity

Citation: Go, A. S., D. Mozaffarian, and V. L. Roger. “Sugar-sweetened beverages initiatives can help fight childhood obesity.” circulation 127 (2013): e6-e245.

Summary: This article discusses an option for lowering sugary drink consumption by taxing it and shows how it will also help the economy. They also define sugary drinks into types of beverages and talk a little bit about why it is so bad for you.

Source 5

Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the US (2005-2008)

Citation: Ogden, Cynthia L., et al. Consumption of sugar drinks in the United States, 2005-2008. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2011.

Summary: This article discusses the consumption in kilocalories and the differences of consumption based on age, race, ethnicity, income, location. It also explains how much is consumed and gives a definition for sugar drinks.

Source 6

Evaluating Sugary Drink Nutrition and Marketing to Youth

Citation: Harris, Jennifer L., et al. “Evaluating sugary drink nutrition and marketing to youth.” New Haven, CT: Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (2011).

Summary:This article discusses childhood obesities direct link to sugary drinks and how many of these companies promote this unhealthy life style. While providing general accurate statements it also provides a great deal of statistics to support The fact that sugary drinks are bad for children and yet marketed directly to them.

Source 7

Intake of Sugar-sweetened beverages & weight gain

Citation: Malik, Vasanti S., Matthias B. Schulze, and Frank B. Hu. “Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 84.2 (2006): 274-288.

Summary: This article takes an in depth look at the correlation of sugary drinks and weight gain. The review uses different investigations and studies to come to the conclusion that the intake of sugar beverages are in conjunction with weight gain and obesity in children and adults. It explains that theses beverages also provide little nutritional value and result in incomplete compensation of energy at subsequent meals. Ultimately the conclusion of the article is that these drinks should be discouraged and there needs to be more efforts to promote consumption of healthier beverages.

Source 8

Food Away from Home, Sugary-Sweetened Drink Consumption & Juvenile Obesity

Citation: Gillis, Linda J., and Oded Bar-Or. “Food away from home, sugar-sweetened drink consumption and juvenile obesity.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition 22.6 (2003): 539-545.

Summary: This article discusses the relationship between people’s diets and their weight. They complete a study in which they found that obese children consume more meat, grains, sugary drinks, and processed food, while also lacking fruits and vegetables in everyday diets. It also talks about the effects that eating out has on the food consumption of children.

Source 9

Mass Media’s Influence on Knowledge, Attitudes, & Behaviors about Sugary Drinks and Obesity

Citation: Boles, Myde, et al. “Ability of a mass media campaign to influence knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about sugary drinks and obesity.” Preventive medicine 67 (2014): S40-S45.

Summary: This article discusses the relationship media has with the way people act. The article shows that when the media shows a group of people how bad sugary drinks, they become more informed and then change behaviors. In this specific study they talk about a study done in Oregon where they informed people about how bad sugary drinks are for you and how this campaign helped the people in the area become more knowledgeable, and how a large portion of these people stated they would change their ways.

Source 10

Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Obesity

Citation: “Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Overweight and Obesity.” Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Overweight and Obesity. World Health Organization, 24 Aug. 2016. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Summary: The World Health Organization talks about how sugary drinks are directly linked to obesity. Consumption of these beverages is incredibly high and suggest poor diets. They offer suggestions on how much sugar should be consumed to be considered healthy.

Source 11

Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks

Citation: McKinlay, Rodrick D. “Obesity Action Coalition » Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks.” Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks Comments. Obesity Action Coalition, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Summary: This article talks about the effect sugary drinks have on childhood obesity. It discusses how much is consumed and the effect caffeine has as well. It ends by talking about parents roles on changing this problem by adapting a healthier lifestyle as well to role model how to be healthier for the children.

Source 12

How Much is Too Much?

Citation: Johnson. “How much is too much?” Research. SugarScience.org, 30 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.

Summary: In this article they discuss the concern for how much sugar Americans intake against what Americans are actually consuming using lots of facts and statistics.

Source 13

Benefits of Sports Drinks Like Gatorade and Powerade

Citation: Cespedes, Andrea. “Benefits of Sports Drinks Like Gatorade and Powerade.” Leaf Group, 09 June 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2016

Summary:

Source 14

Citation:

Summary:

 

Working Thesis

  1. By putting an age restriction on sugary drinks for children under 18 will make a significant positive effect on decreasing the percentage of childhood obesity and increase overall health of children.
  2. Childhood Obesity is a Nationwide epidemic that can be reduced by eliminating the unlimited access to sugary drinks by creating an age restriction on purchase.
  3. Childhood obesity is a nationwide epidemic that cannot be solved completely but can begin to be reduce by eliminating the unlimited access to sugary drinks and decrease the percentage of sugar intake by creating an age restriction on the ability to purchase the products, which will ultimately decreasing the percentage of childhood obesity.

 

Arguments

Ideas

  • Explain what Sugary Drinks consist of
  • Explain why sugary drinks are bad for you
  • Explain the effects of sugary drinks causing childhood obesity
  • Go through other ideas on how to solve the problem
  • Compare proposal/thesis to cigarettes
  • Evaluate major companies and their marketing

Definition

Childhood obesity is a nationwide epidemic throughout the United States. While there are many leading factors when it comes to what causes Childhood obesity one of the largest causes is from the consumption of sugary drinks. According to the CDC, “80% of youth consume sugar sweetened beverages,” but what they do not mention is what exactly a sugary drink consists of, posing the question for readers of what is a sugary drink ?

For most people when the thought of sugary drinks comes to mind the though of soda and energy drinks are what constitutes as a sugar drink, however it is actually so much more. According to the National Cancer Center, “sugary drinks consist of fruit drinks, soda, energy drinks, sport drinks, and sweetened waters” (Ogden, 5). The American Heart Association also gives a list of what is included in sugary drinks, including sweetened teas to the list as well (Go, 1).In the Advice for Patients section of the Arch Pediatric Medical Journal they give examples of some of the types of sugar drinks and examples to go with it. For the type of drink classified under fruitades they gave examples such as Gatorade and lemonade, for fruit juices they give examples like Kool-Aid and Fruit Punch, for Soda they give the example of Coke, Pepsi and 7Up, and for Energy Drinks they give the examples of Monster or Red Bull (Arch, 1). The drinks mentioned above are a lot of times considered to be healthy or good for you, and are in many American homes. The problem is that sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugars in a youth’s diet and also the main source of calorie intake (Harris, 2). What this means is that when a child drinks a soda they are taking in a lot of calories at one time, often more than a body needs which then is not processed properly and becomes fat.

The largest problem that Americans face with determining if a drink is considered bad for you before even looking to see the sugar content is due to the fact that many sugary drinks have positive health claims attached to help hide the fact that they are packed with sugar (Harris, 2). One of the most common poor drink purchases are sports drinks, such as Gatorade. On the Gatorade label it has the word Performance in large print as well as the phrases thirst quencher and natural flavors. Gatorade is also know as an electrolyte sports drink, and kids see many different athletes supporting these products families are lead to assume this is good for their child. What they don’t know is that Gatorade is packed with 35 grams of sugar in a 20oz bottle. Just think 35 grams of sugar is equal to 8.75 teaspoons of sugar, and that’s a lot of sugar in a bottle.

While there is many different types of drinks out there, they can almost always be classified as sugary or not. By making people more aware of what is bad for children, families will be able to make more informed choices when shopping for beverages and hopefully that will help with the childhood obesity epidemic that sweeps our country.

Causal

Childhood obesity is one the countries biggest health problems of the 21st century, and there is truly no cure. In an article produced by the American Society for Nutrition they discuss how obesity is the reflection of the interactions of different factors such as, genetics, cultures, environments, socioeconomic status and behaviors. These factors are play a role in the reasons why people eat what they eat, specifically the consumption of sugar. For most Americans their main source of added sugars comes from their intake of sugary drinks. Consumption of these sugary drinks are incredibly high and is linked to being one of the leading causes in childhood obesity nationwide.

Sugary drinks are available everywhere from stores to schools to vending machines, making it nearly impossible for children not to get their hands on it. Due to easy access to sugar drinks such as sodas, fruit juices and sports drinks, the consumption of these drinks continually increase everyday. In an article written by Roderick McKinley he states that the average American consumes 1.6 cans of soda a day, resulting in them consuming more than 500 cans of soda in one year. Think about one 12 ounce can of Coca-Cola, that can of soda contains 39 grams of sugar. According to an article published by Sugar Science “the average amount of added sugar a child should consume in one day is 18.5 grams,  however this may vary based on age but will never be more than 25 grams.” If a child consumes just one can of Coca-Cola a day they have already doubled their sugar intake for the day. What is most concerning is the calories being consumed by just drinking these beverages. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend “the total intake of discretional calories, including sugars and fats, should range between 5-15% per day, yet most American children consume about 16% of their intake from added sugars alone, not including fats or any other foods.” While many Americans are shocked to find out these statistics they also don’t always understand where these added sugars are coming from, and do not seem to realize that they come from the drinks they are consuming.

These sugary drinks are often consumed without much thought into the fact that the person consuming the drink is drinking large amounts of sugar as well as drinking a large percentage of calories, not to mention doing so very quickly. What becomes the problem is that many people consume more of this than their body needs. In an advice column published by the Arch Pediatric Medical Journal they state that these drinks are all consumed before a person’s body can realize they have consumed it which in turn is before the body has time to realize it is full in the same way a body would when eating solid food.  The World Health Organization also adds to this by stating “these drinks have little nutritional value and do not provide the same feeling of fullness as solid food does,” making it so they continue to consume more even though their body has had enough. The more people consume sugary drinks the more sugar they have in their system exceeding the amount they need to be able to produce energy. Because of the over consumption the body breaks down only what it needs for energy and the rest is stored as fat. Over many years of consuming too much sugar and the body storing excess as fat, especially after starting at a young age, the fat continues to add up ultimately resulting in the person becoming obese. In a study conducted by the American College of Nutrition they found that “Obese children consume significantly more servings of fats and sugary beverages than non-obese children in a study done between the two groups.” This study helps to prove that the correlation between obesity and sugary drinks is in fact a direct cause to this nationwide epidemic known as childhood obesity.

Childhood Obesity may never be cured as it has so many different causes, however it can be reduced even just a little. The CDC currently states that childhood obesity affects about 12.7 million children. This amount of children could be reduced if the reduction of sugary drink consumption goes down as well. While it will not reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and its affects on childhood obesity by a lot, if parents become more educated and adopt healthy habits themselves, such as cutting back intake of soda, they will begin to influence their children and the children around them to do the same. As these educated parents, influence their children there is hope that in future generations obesity declines and is only a small percentage of the united states as those children will become parents and be able to provide the healthiest nutritional options and knowledge for their future children as possible.

Rebuttal

 Final Research Paper Outline

  • Introduction to Childhood Obesity
  • Thesis
  • Define sugary drinks and explain what they consist of (Definition)
  • Explain the connection between the two (Causal)
  • Media’s affect on the ignorance of sugar consumption through beverages (Rebuttal)
  • Different things that have been tried to help prevent this problem (general advertisement, taxing proposal)
  • Compare my idea to put age limit on this to the age restriction on cigarettes

 

 

Causal Argument- yeezygod21

The rights of Americans have been the country’s most treasured pursuit. To able to live in such a free nation has put a lot pressure on the government to protect our life styles. Our values as Americans have made us a target for terror to instill disbelief in our liberty. However, as Americans we stand together against those who oppose our rights. When analyzing the events at San Bernardino we understand that those who disagree with our way of life use it to their advantage to pursue a reality that does not already surround them. The FBI has made a request with the department of justice that would alert the world of technology consumers. A request that requires Apple to access information on an iPhone used by a terrorist. This request has brought the question of private security verse public security to the public. (1) In, “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security by Yaozong Ma states, “A cornerstone of the FBI‟s argument was the All Writs Act which allowed courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law” (Limer, 2016). Essentially, All Writs Act provides justification and authorization for courts to craft, enact, and implement orders which compel individuals to perform acts provided that reasoning is both necessary and legal (Limer, 2016).” This shows that the FBI believes that they have the legal means to ask for assistance from a third party. (2) In FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones, by Craig Timberg and Greg Miller report the motives of FBI Director James B. Comey wanting Apple to comply with their request. Comey states that, “He could not understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” His reasoning is based on the assumption that apple only caters to the top percent of people who can afford their products. Protecting their private information is what made their company so great to their customers. He defends his stance on protecting the public; moreover it is such a hard stance he forgets that private privacy is just as important to the public. Apple has been known to sell the most exclusive hardware since the beginning of their company.

Defintion Argument — dragon570

A concussion is when a person the brain is bruised because they were hit really hard or hit something really hard. Brain injuries is a very serious decision in sports because players get injured all the time. Inside our skull we have our brain and if that something happens where a persons brain bangs into the skull it could cause some harmful things depending on how hard the brain hit against the skull. Also, the brain is surrounded by fluid and 3 layers that is between the brain and the skull but they only can help to a limit when the brain hits against the skull.

Rugby is a sport that involves no pads, and older versions of the American football helmets from back in the day. Rugby is played around the world from America, New Zealand, Japan to list a few. People say rugby is like American football but without pads, however, that is not the case the difference is:

  • They use a different method for tackling a player that has the ball.
  • The ball is shaped differently than the American football.
  • The scoring is different. A “try” (touchdown) is 5 point, instead, of 6 points like the NFL.
  • The time of play is not split into 4 quarters instead it’s split into 2 halves.
  • The equipment that rugby players wear is different from the NFL’s equipment.

Work Cited

“Concussion: Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention.” WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

Dawson, Peter. “Rugby Tries – How and Where You Score Tries in Rugby.” RugbyHow. RugbyHow, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

Causal Argument – darnell18

The Dark Truth About Driving

When it comes to police officers pulling over minorities for discriminatory reasons, the causal chain that follows has proven to be extremely controversial and sometimes even fatal. These looming problems could be non existent if officers used their authority properly on a consistent basis. The specific issue at hand exists in the first place because police officers in today’s society do not always use their discretion to pull drivers over simply for issues relating to the law, but rather because of their discriminatory mentality. Christopher Ingraham claims that “approximately a two percent higher amount of blacks than whites are actually not even given a reason for why they have been pulled over when they get stopped,” in his article, “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show.” Two percent may not sound extremely high, but when the percentage of whites not given a reason is only at 2.6, then it is almost double the amount of blacks that go through the same thing.

The causal chain that tends to occur in this situation is that discriminating police officers pulling over a higher number of minorities than any other group, then leads to these minorities resenting police officers because they abuse their authority. In addition to that, whether the driver or officer are being particularly way too difficult at the time, things have taken an abrupt, violent turn for the worst.

The Constitution begins by stating that “all men are equal”, yet the society we live in has proven that although it is in The Constitution, it is still far from true. In relation to discrimination by officers potentially turning violent, it is important to understand that the discrimination does not just stop when the car is pulled over. Much like how The Constitution states that all men are equal but still are not treated equally, the 14th Amendment provides equal protection and not allowing discrimination while driving, but that is also not applied consistently. As a nation, we cannot be oblivious and neglect the fact that regardless of what The Constitution may say, law enforcement does not faithfully abide to it. Minorities are referred to as such because there are less of them in our country than whites. Nevertheless, more blacks are pulled over than whites. Minorities making up the majority of people pulled over is a staggering statistic that should not be overlooked.
Just a few months ago, an African-American man named Philando Castile was shot and killed by a police officer in his car in Minnesota. The car was pulled over for a broken taillight, which is understandable. Nevertheless, the man had a 5 year old girl in the back seat when the officer shot him. There was a woman in the passenger seat that started recording the situation on her phone after shots were fired, and her statement explaining the killing was that, ”he let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm,” Elliot McLaughlin reports in his article, “Woman Streams Aftermath of Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting.” He had a permit for the gun and went out of his way to make the officer aware he had it. It may not be known how this would have unfolded had the driver been white, but taking into consideration that the society we live in today is full of discrimination and hate, most people would believe that this officer was slightly more on-edge and trigger-happy due to the color of the man on the opposite end of the barrel.

The issue does not just begin and end with a simple traffic stop, either. “The racial disparity isn’t just limited to stops. Other police-driver contact — searches, tickets, arrests and license suspensions — show similar racial skews,” according to Kim Soften in “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers.” This is what leads to the majority of these minorities resenting and not respecting the authority. Many of them may have to deal with ensuing legal issues after getting pulled over, that would not have happened had this epidemic been a thing of the past.

As far as the anticipated rebuttals to this argument go, it is clear that not everybody shares a similar viewpoint on this topic. If everybody had the same mindset about it, it probably would not be a problem. Some rebuttals are indisputably true as well, such as the fact that African American police officers pull over black people as well, so it is unlikely a man would discriminate against someone the same color as him. Nevertheless, with that being said, that does not account for every single traffic stop. It is an exception to the discriminatory pattern of white against black, but yet it cannot be ignored that the percentage of those occurrences is minuscule in relation to the typical white cop, black driver scenario.

In conclusion, as much as our nation would probably like to say that discrimination was a thing of the past, it is not. These are real issues and racism is still alive. Just because it does not come in the visual form of segregation in the early 1900s, does not mean it is gone and over with. It is clearly unknown what it will take to change the discriminatory mindset of the people in our society today, but at this rate it looks like we are on pace to set our country back 100 years and something must be done about it. Yes, we have had a black president, but it is as if we took one step forward and two steps back by now electing a man who openly makes racist and discriminatory remarks in many of his debates and press conferences. There were actually riots when Obama was elected. This shows that a good amount of this country was not ready for a black president. If racial profiling still happened under a black president, they certainly will not improve or just go away under the government of a man who sustains a discriminatory mentality.

Works Cited

Soften, Kim. “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers” The Washington Post. 08 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

Ingraham, Christopher. “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show” The Washington Post. 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

McLaughlin, Elliot. “Woman Streams Aftermath of Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting” CNN. 08 July, 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016