Rebuttal rewrite- veleze22

Technology Arises (Rebuttal)


Technology is at a stage where it can resolve all problems. It has risen to be one of the most dependable sources in our present time. Technology has the power to even stop concussions occurring in our most dangerous sports, like football. Every year, thousands of football players suffer from mild concussions. Concussions occur when the brain moves and collides with the skull. In contrast to the publicly available data on the safety of automobiles, consumers have no analytical mechanism to evaluate the protective performance of football helmets. A new mechanism called the “STAR Evaluation system” was brainstormed and can be used to evaluate helmet performance by integrating player head impact exposure and risk of concussion. The Summation of Tests for the Analysis of Risk (STAR) equation relates on-field impact exposure to a series of 24 drop tests performed at four impact locations and six impact energy levels(Rowson & Duma, 2011). Using 62,974 head acceleration data points collected from football players, the number of impacts experienced for one full season was translated to 24 drop test configurations (Rowson & Duma, 2011). From those tests a new injury risk function was developed from 32 measured concussions and associated exposure data to assess risk of concussion for each impact. The data from all 24 drop tests was combined into one number using the STAR formula that incorporates the predicted exposure and injury risk for one player for one full season of practices and games. The new STAR evaluation equation provided consumers with a great tool to assess the relative performance of football helmets. With that being said coaches must be very attentive to their players and the number of impact blows taken to the head because with this new technology in effect it will be their job to monitor. It is ultimately up to coaches to keep their players safe and to follow the guidelines of this new product. It was tested to its ability and the results speak for themselves.

Overall, impacts to the front of the helmet occurred most frequently, and were followed by impacts to the rear, top, and side of the helmet. Using these percentages, the number of impacts to each impact location for a single player participating in a complete season were computed based on the assumption that a total of 1,000 head impacts were experienced. This transformation gives that for a single season, a player will experience 347 impacts to the front of the helmet, 319 impacts to the rear of the helmet, 171 impacts to the top of the helmet, and 163 impacts to the sides of the helmet. Being that I played football my whole life I can standby these results (Rowson & Duma, 2011). Throughout a full season a player goes through a significant amount of hits to the head whether it’s during practice or in a game, the numbers add up well.

This past season the NFL had launched an Injury Reduction Plan with the plan to reduce the incidence of concussions in the 2018 season. The NFL had a 16 percent increase in concussions during the 2017 season. NFL Chief Medical Officer Dr. Allen Sills set a call-to-action to reduce concussions.

“We see our job in player health and safety to have the very best care for our patients as possible—in terms of prevention, in terms of treating and diagnosing injuries, and doing rehabilitation for those injuries—so we can keep our players as safe as possible,” said Dr. Sills.

NFL leaders, clubs and the wide variety of experts in medicine, engineering and scienctists for the NFL brainstormed a three-part approach to reduce injury. The NFL also created an educational video for players, coaches and club personnel about the concussion reduction strategy (Sills, 2018).

The NFL made 3 categories that will experience change and improvement they are the following:

1. Preseason Practices

Sills wants to start the concussion reduction to start in the preseason practices. He wants practices to be supervised and drills to be watched incase anything brings risk of concussion. His main goal is to drive the number down.

The NFL is sharing information across the league to educate, stimulate change and enhance player safety—including information about the causes of concussion, the helmets players wear, and injury data analysis, such as preseason practice concussion data (Sills, 2018)

  1. Better Performing Helmets

The second part of the Injury Reduction Plan is a goal to get players out of old-age helmets and to get them into modern day performing helmets in an effort to decrease the risk of injury. Each year, helmets go into laboratory testing by biomechanical engineers  in-partner with the NFL and the NFL Players Association. Their goals are to determine which helmets are more durable and reduce head impact and injury. The results of the laboratory tests are printed onto posters and shared with NFL players, club equipment managers, along with club medical, training and coaching staffs. In 2018, based on the results of this study and the opinions of the biomechanical experts involved, the NFL and NFLPA will prohibit 10 helmet models from being worn by NFL players (Sills, 2018). No helmet can completely protect a player from serious head injuries a player might sustain while playing football.

3. Rules Changes

The third component of the Injury Reduction Plan is the enforcement of rules changes which is made to reduce big hits that can potentially lead to inury. The “Use of the Helmet” rule has been strictly enforced this season. Any player to make helmet-to-helmet contact will result in an automatic flag and first down, possibly a fine depending on how dangerous the hit was. The NFL is leveraging data in an effort to improve player safety and evolve the game.



Rowson, S., & Duma, S. M. (2011, May 07). Development of the STAR Evaluation System for Football Helmets: Integrating Player Head Impact Exposure and Risk of Concussion. Retrieved from

The 2018 Injury Reduction Plan: Initiatives to Advance Player Health and Safety. (n.d.). Retrieved from




Rebuttal Rewrite- Peter Bomersbach

The debate on whether violent video games can cause aggressive behaviors or not change anything at all. Studies show both sides of the argument of how violent video games effect children. There is the side of violent video games cause an increase in aggressive behavior and mental health. Then there is the result of no correlation between a change in behaviors and playing mature video games. The result of playing violent video games depends all on the personality of the human playing the video game such as having a child with an outgoing personality with a result of no effect and a child with a timid, shy personality with a dangerous effect. For me personally, playing violent video games have no effect on me whatsoever but as far as my brother goes, he is a totally different situation. Video games can be a different experience for everyone who plays, it all depends on their personality.

In an article, “Violent Video Games May Increase Aggresion in Some But Not Others, Says New Research,” Dr. Ferguson said, “Violent video games are like peanut butter” He also said “They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems.” This is like the situation for my brother, I am fine after playing violent video games but on the other hand he is not. Aggression is the leading cause as to why violent video games get so much attention, even at this point in time the majority of violent video games is what all gamers enjoy.

There are plenty of studies out there that try to prove no connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior. In the article, “No evidence to support link between violent video games and behavior, the University of York stated in their study, “In a series of experiments, with more than 3,000 participants, the team demonstrated that video game concepts do not ‘prime’ players to behave in certain ways and that increasing the realism of violent video games does not necessarily increase aggression in game players.” This quote from the University of York explosions what they found but they are missing key factors such as the participants past and what they have been through or their personality before beginning the study. They also mentioned how increasing how real the virtual situation is in game might prepare them for real life but that was not the case since they achieved mixed results. Other studies suggest people who play violent video games become desensitized by the graphical images in game and become immoral when it happens in real life. Author “Cheryl K. Olsen” from the Massachusetts General Hospital posted an article, “Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development,” stating, “Researchers are now exploring what children can gain from electronic games, often emphasizing their potential to teach academic skills.” This explains what children can do with potential of playing the right kind of video game.




Ferguson, Christipher. “Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 7 June 2010.


Olsen, Cheryl K. Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development. Massachusetts General Hospital, 16 Jan. 2010.

Rebuttal- rewrite- misterfries19

Music has always been an instinctive crutch for people to lean on. In the colonial 1800’s, we have written accounts of  African slaves joining together in song as they worked throughout the day. These songs would help the slaves deal with their pain by helping  pass the time, and giving them an actual physical release in the form of their voice. These songs also helped to spread a collective message of hope throughout the slave community. If the slaves are singing together, then they still have each other. Another example of music being used therapeutically can be seen in the US Military. When a soldier dies, the U.S. Military plays “Taps” at the soldier’s funeral. The song is played for every soldier as way to recognize them for their courage, as well as to distinguish them from any normal person. These were soldiers, and the song helps them to be remembered as such. Going even further, the US military actually hired musical therapists to perform for wounded soldiers recovering from injuries suffered in World War II. The therapists were a hit among the soldiers, and the practice became fairly common.

Of course, music is not the only known healing device in the world, nor is it the most commonly used. As science progresses, advancements in the medical field keep introducing themselves. Among them are new surgical techniques, new tools to use while in surgery, and new medicines. Another common medical practice is therapy. Therapy was once considered something closer to witchcraft than medicine. Ok, maybe not witchcraft, but it’s credibility was in question. However, over time, studies showed that it was indeed effective, and now it is accepted by Doctors as a valid medical practice. Therapy can include physical therapy, but types of therapy designed for the mind and emotion are more relevant to the discussion, such as Psychotherapy and Emotional Counseling. The acceptance of newfound therapeutic routes comes hand-in-hand with more attention being paid to a patient’s mental health, and not just their physical health. As a result, medicine has been designed specifically to treat patients with mental health related disorders, such as depression and anxiety.

According to Siddhartha Mukherjee of The New York Times, the FDA approved of the drug Prozac in 1988. It was created as an “anti-depressant,” which is pretty self explanatory. After it’s first year on the market, Prozac had filled 2,469,000 prescriptions. People were ecstatic about the results of Prozac. According to John Markowitz, a Professor of Pharmacy at the University of Florida, it was a hit because it was the safest anti-depressant on the market. Previous antidepressants were incredibly unpredictable. The drug was  hard to dose correctly, because it was extremely volatile, and side effects were hard to control. Patients were even overdosing from amounts of the drug that were previously thought non-lethal. Prozac is a much more controlled substance, however. Because of this, Prozac was seen as a safer route out of depression.

Prozac’s popularity continued to grow. Tony Soprano started using it on TV, and regular Americans considered it effective, and even life-changing for some. In the 1994 novel Prozac Nation, Elizabeth Wurtzel talks about her positive experiences on the drug. Before trying prozac, Wurtzel was, by her own despcription, living in “a computer program of total negativity . . . an absence of affect, absence of feeling, absence of response, absence of interest.” After starting Prozac, however, she recalls miraculously waking up one morning and not feeling depressed anymore. Wurtzel states

 “One morning I woke up and really did want to live. . . . It was as if the miasma of depression had lifted off me, in the same way that the fog in San Francisco rises as the day wears on. Was it the Prozac? No doubt.”

By 2002, the number of Prozac prescriptions in the United States had risen to over 33 million. And by 2008, anti-depressants had become the 3rd most prescribed type of drug in America. This could be because of a lot of outside factors. In reality, the 2000’s were loaded with a lot of stress-inducing events. The attacks at 9/11 left a nation in shock and dismay, while also heightening our attention on the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would not let up. And to make things worse, the collapse of the Housing Market in 2008 introduced the Recession. In the face of unprecedented societal issues, as well as the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, its reasonable to understand why more people were seeking prescription drugs like Prozac. 

After anti-depressant prescriptions had really hit their peak, people began to seriously question the drug’s abilities. Evaluating Prozac 20 years after the drug’s introduction can provide us with an ample amount of studies to take information from. With more people using anti-depressants than ever, it was also always more likely for new complaints and side-effects to be reported. The lack of progress in treating what it was prescribed for combined with newer drugs led to the downfall of Prozac. By the 2010’s, anti-depressant usage was even being discouraged by some doctors. Psychologist Irving Kirsch referred to anti-depressants as nothing more than sugar-pill placebos, not equipped to deal with the more complex psychological issues of individuals that may require much more than a pill to get a grip on what the problem really is.

Some doctors even began to start re-thinking the logic behind how anti-depressant’s work as a whole. Depression has always been thought to be caused by a lack of serotonin in the brain. As serotonin levels diminished, depression kicked in. Thus, drugs were created around the goal of producing more serotonin for the brain.

When doctor’s actually began looking at the serotonin levels in depressed patients, they saw that serotonin levels really were not that low. But the people being medicated were still depressed. Thus, the theory that depression relied strictly on serotonin levels was debunked.

Even more research showed that serotonin IS in fact a big part of determining mood, but only as an ingredient in the recipe. But, the drugs did improve our understanding of depression. So, although Prozac might not be the answer that so many people thought it was during the 1980’s, anti-depressants can still be used effectively.

Whats interesting now is finding out the other ingredients besides prescription medication that make up the Anti-Depression soup. If the drugs are not enough, then pursuing everything else is the only option. Like stated earlier, modern medicine has opened up different means of therapy to the world. Group-style counseling groups consisting of people undergoing similar hardships have been introduced. One-to-one therapy with a Psychologist can also be effective.

And then there is the use of music. Yes, music has actually been used to curb signs of depression. According to, listening to music can help the body produce dopamine, which is a chemical that has to do with controlling behavior. Also, the rhythm of the songs helps to provide a rhythm for breathing, which can help control heartbeat and other bodily functions.

A study done by the British Journal of Psychiatry showed even more evidence of musical therapy being effective when treating patients with depression. In the study of 79 patients with depression, 46 of them received standard care, which included anti-depressants, psychotherapy sessions, and psychiatric counseling. the remaining 33 received the same treatment, as well as 20 different hour-long musical therapy sessions. The group that participated in the musical therapy reportedly showed lower rates of depression than the group who hadn’t, as well as more improvements in day-to-day functions.

So, is music the cure for depression? No, but neither are anti-depressants. Taking one or the other will not rid anybody of their depression. Nobody really knows what can. But, one thing is for sure: These are definitely two ingredients in the complex recipe that we are continuously improving upon to fight depression. As time and science move forward, we can only continue to try all resources at our disposal, and continue to see what improvements can be made in the coming future.


Borchard, Therese. “How Music Therapy Can Relieve Depression.”, Everyday Health, 4 May 2017,

Hatton, Randy C. “25 Years after Prozac.” Home,, 1 May 2013,


Mukherjee, Siddhartha. “Post-Prozac Nation.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2012,

Rebuttal Rewrite

The discovery and development of antibiotics improved people’s lives, providing treatments that were more effective than their predecessors. What was once a potentially deadly infection could now be treated with amazing efficacy. Arsenic, a deadly poison in a high dose, was once the only method of treating infection. In small doses arsenic would attack the unwanted bacteria, but this was a precarious scenario. Too much arsenic would have an adverse effect, potentially killing the consumer. Enter the “Age of Antibiotics,” states Gerard D. Write in his book, The Origins of Antibiotic Resistance and we see drastic improvements in the field beginning in the 1940’s. However, resistance was inevitable from the start.

We need to figure out a way to combat resistance. In the article, “What’s old is new: Reconfiguring known antibiotics to fight drug resistance,” from the journal Nature Medicine, Shraddha Chakradhar proposes that the way to do that might be by changing current antibiotics. Chakradhar states, “Turning to pre-existing drugs to make antibiotics more effective against drug-resistant strains of well-known pathogens is especially appealing given that no new class of antibiotics has been approved for nearly 30 years.” This argument does not address why no new class of antibiotics have been approved and therefore leaves us wondering, is it perhaps policy that needs to change. Moreover, she states that “drug companies and the US government have invested more than $1 billion combined toward the development of new antibiotics, just within the past decade,” which again screams at a potential flaw in how we go about approving these new antibiotics. According to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, there is a, “‘ticking time-bomb’. She says this is because of an overuse of antibiotics and the lack of new drugs coming on stream – no new class of antibiotics has been discovered since 1987,” taken from the Cancer Nursing Practice Journal, written by Nick Triggle.

The approach of “reconfiguring” existing antibiotics does nothing to address the problem with over-prescription. Over-prescription and misuse is negating any efforts to create stronger more effective drugs. Linda Bren quotes Stuart Levy, M.D., president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. “”The number of bacteria resistant to many different antibiotics has increased, in many cases, tenfold or more. Even new drugs that have been approved are confronting resistance, fortunately in small amounts, but we must be careful how they’re used. If used for extended periods of time, they too risk becoming ineffective early on,”” in her article, “Overprescription of Antibiotics Has Led to Resistant Bacteria.” Dr. Levy warns us that if we continue to overprescribe, even new drugs will become ineffective.


Bren, L. (2006). Overprescription of Antibiotics Has Led to Resistant Bacteria. In A. Hiber (Ed.), At Issue. Are Americans Overmedicated? Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from FDA Consumer, 2003, September) Retrieved from

Triggle, N. (2013). Overprescription of antibiotics is a ‘ticking time-bomb’: Chief medical officer points out that cancer patients are at increased risk of infections. nick triggle reports. Cancer Nursing Practice, 12(3), 6-7. doi:10.7748/cnp2013.

Coates, A. R. M. (2012;2014;). Antibiotic resistance (1. Aufl. ed.). Heidelberg;New York;: Springer.

Chakradhar, S. (2016). What’s old is new: Reconfiguring known antibiotics to fight drug resistance. Nature Medicine, 22(11), 1197-1199. doi:

Shlaes, D. M. (2010). Antibiotics: The perfect storm (1st;1; ed.). New York;Dordrecht;: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9057-7

Brian N Tse, Amesh A Adalja, Christopher Houchens, Joseph Larsen, Thomas V Inglesby, Richard Hatchett; Challenges and Opportunities of Nontraditional Approaches to Treating Bacterial Infections, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 3, 1 August 2017, Pages 495–500,


Rebuttal Rewrite – ivonid12

Quarterbacks easily get the most attention, in the national football league, and it’s understandable why. The camera is mostly on them, they touch the ball the most out of all players, and they make offensive plays happen. Almost every year they win MVP, even though a quarterback has more time and knowledge, in comparison to defense, in the aspects of strategy, time, and execution. Even though quarterbacks make the most plays with their relationship with the football, they have the easiest, and most prepared job on the field.

With so much value, stats, and versatility from defensive stars, voters still gravitate towards quarterbacks every year. Even though defensive stars are much more valuable in many factors, it is easy to see why quarterbacks get so much recognition. Former quarterback Steve Young, now an NFL Analyst, shares the same opinion with a lot a fans and those who have the opinion on why quarterbacks are the most valuable.  Young states, “The great quarterbacks get everyone together, when it’s third and 10 in the fourth quarter, down by four on the road in the drizzling rain in 33 degrees. You have to be a guy that people will respond to.” While it is true that the quarterback is unquestionably the leader of the offense, the defensive captain does the same as well. A defensive captain is more of a team leader than a quarterback as their play has more of an impact to both sides of the ball. Young also states, “I’ve gone to law school, and the intellectual challenge of honing all of the data in a way that you can have immediate, you can have reflexive recall — not taking a couple seconds to think about it. But that’s five, 10, 30 times more time than you get in football. And you have to do it from the time you step on the field until you step off of it.” Once again, Young’s argument on quarterbacks having to make decisions in a extremely small amount of time isn’t wrong and is certainly difficult, however, quarterbacks get the whole play clock to diagnose the field ahead of them, while defensive players get mere micro-seconds. Many great quarterbacks such as Brady, Brees, and Manning are great because of their pre-snap diagnosis of the defense and are able to find the weak spots in the defense. Defensive players do not get the same ability to study what their opponent is doing pre-play, and mostly have to react to what happens before their eyes. Every play the defense is at an immediate disadvantage in comparison to the offense, because their diagnosis is more of an educated guess. Quarterbacks are also given designated reads as well, as the NFL is more coach driven than ever. Before every pass play the quarterback has his “go to read” as his main option, designed by the coaching and system the quarterback has in place for him. If the quarterback doesn’t like his first read, there’s always his second or third, and if the pass play doesn’t seem like the best option, he can always switch it to the run. In addition,  quarterbacks in the league are more system driven than ever before. The NFL is filled with plenty of young, strategic, and brilliant offensive minds in the league right now, and it is undeniable what their impact is on young quarterbacks in the league right now. A great example of how much a new offensive system can benefit a quarterback is two of the better young quarterbacks in the league in Jared Goff, and Mitchell Trubisky. Trubisky and Goff were number two, and number one picks respectively, had different coaches their rookie seasons, and are now much more successful after struggling their rookie seasons. Jared Goff came in the league with the now unemployed Jeff Fisher as his head coach, and struggled mightily in his rookie season, throwing more interceptions than touchdowns. Ever since Sean McVay was hired in 2017, Goff has performed as one of the best quarterbacks in the league, as he is now a MVP candidate with his team having one of the best records in the league. The same could be said for Mitchell Trubisky, as the hiring of now head coach Matt Nagy has kick-started his career after the bad struggles with former head coach John Fox. Trubisky has performed like one of the better quarterbacks in the league, since the hiring of Coach Nagy, and his career is for sure on the upswing. In contrast, defensive players do not have this same luxury as quarterbacks, mainly because their performance is much more predicated on their talent. Defensive systems do not nearly affect defensive stars in comparison to offensive systems, as great defensive players stay great on different teams. Deion Sanders played at a high level for three different teams, and is arguably the greatest all time at his position. There’s a reason most franchise quarterbacks stay with teams and coaches for most their career, as the offensive systems the quarterbacks are given is a major reason for their success. Plenty of defensive players have switched teams and have remained just as great.

Lastly, quarterbacks by far touch the ball the most out of any position on the field, as unless it is a direct snap to a different position, the whole offense runs through the quarterback. With the league becoming more pass heavy by the season, quarterbacks now throw the ball more than ever, leading to an inflation in stats and attention. If you compare the pass attempts per game for every team in the NFL in 2018 to 2008, there are a few teams that pass 40+ times a game, and rarely any that pass under thirty. In 2008, no team passed over 40 times a game, and the average pass attempts per game for every team was about 32.35 attempts per game. In 2018, that average has increased to 34.89, and could become higher as the season progresses. With the increase of screen passes and check downs, in recent years, quarterbacks get rewarded more than ever with a pass that barely travels five yards. In comparison to defenses, there are no easy plays to be made, and require the fast thinking and talent of making an interception or forcing a fumble.  Quarterbacks have to have some semblance of knowledge and ability, but with constantly evolving offensive systems, and more time than any other position, they receive much more credit than they really do deserve.


“Jared Goff Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

 “Mitchell Trubisky Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

28, January. “Steve Young: Quarterback Is the Most Important Position in Football.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 28 Jan. 2012,

“NFL Team Pass Attempts per Game.” NFL Football Stats – NFL Team Points per Game on,

Rebuttal Rewrite — Wiseman101

Physician-assisted suicide

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review”, they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice?

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law”, says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights.

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. These are factors that embody the civil liberties promise of most governments around the world.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.





Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Rebuttal Rewrite-Baahubali

Needs a Title

The only person in the whole world that can match Michael Jackson’s steps and his legacy is Michael Jackson himself. Although he departed from this planet to some other world, he managed to imprint himself in the hearts of people. Just like your shadow never leaves you, the same way Michael Jackson never left us. He is still relevant in today’s world of music and entertainment. His music and his style is evergreen and he is setting example for the current and next generations to come. Whenever music, dance or entertainment is mentioned, his name will never fail to be cited. He is also known in history as a triple threat. The multitalented superstar, had a unique knack for composing music, singing and choreographing his own dance. Starting from an early age, he gave up his childhood, to live his dream by entertaining people. Now, he is the world’s biggest superstar.

Even at a young age, Michael was able to captivate millions of people’s hearts all around the world.  When he started singing with his 4 brothers in the Jackson 5 Band, many people always thought he stood out from the rest with his unique dance style, his fun energy, and ability to entertain. His popularity lead to his fans committing suicide when he passed away. His funeral had been witnessed more times than the 9/11 incident on the news channels and social media. It caused the Internet to crash and many search engines to stop working. Popular singers in this generation, incorporate his dance style and fashion into their own music and fans remember him through new singers in this way. The rhythm and tunes in his music is also used in new music and has inspired a new generation of artists.

Even though, Michael Jackson was a legend of his time, others may say that he was just as famous as other stars. But that’s not true. At some point he was diminished from his stardom and earning potentials. This these was due to the drug and the sex abuse charges on him. And by that people were considering him as a characterless man and a rapist. And to justify that statement, according to CNN, Jackson’s collections deals dropped strongly from his top and his “likability” rating turned drastically negative after the significant negative news about the accusations of consumption of drugs and sex abuse. And that’s not it, he was also found guilty for making small boys “drink alcohol.” And if he was a legend, which means that he supposed to have all the ‘hit albums.’ Rather that he had many about 6-7 failed albums such as invincible, Ben, Music and Me, Got to be There, etc. and apart from that he was bankrupted and not granted any loans. And at some point he didn’t even had money to perform shows. And gradually his stardom got faded with time. And by the above point it clearly states that if he was a ‘Mega Star’ then he wouldn’t have faced such hardships and money problems.

Although he might be seen as an average celebrity by some people, he was a legendary singer with the sweetest heart in the world. He stood out from all the singers because he was different from dancing, singing, to entertaining and helping many people who were in need. He was not like others because he donated a large amount of money, like no other celebrity, to many poor people and the African American. Jackson dedicated his life to the joy of children and inspired them to live their dream. He had the most incredible and supportive fans that no other celebrity experienced before. He has been a savior to the African American community and raised millions of dollars with the song, We Are the World, and donated all the money to them. He visited many Medical Centers for leukemia and other cancer research and donated a 19 bed unit to the hospital with his own money. He donated 1.5 million dollars from his Pepsi Commercial when he founded the Michael Jackson Burn Center. Towards the end of his life, he setup the Michael Jackson United Negro College Fund for education for poor people who could not afford an education. He always knew the importance of education and accomplishing their dreams. He set up this outlet for young children to find a purpose in their lives with his own money. It is very rare that any celebrity would do this much for people in need. Most celebrities would spend the money for themselves or to small charities, but all his money and earnings went towards people who were in need. The amount of lives he has helped with those foundations and charity work, is something that sets him apart from others. His heart was like no other celebrity or human being and gave instead of gaining. Michael was extra ordinary when it came to his achievements. He sold close to 750 million copies of his album. Compared to modern day celebrity, Beyoncé has sold close to 150 million. Michael Jackson has surpassed great expectations. Even though he lived a short life, he has achieved the goals of a life time that no other person can achieve.

Looking back at all the things Michael has done for the world of entertainment and music, there is no doubt that he stands out from the other singers.  He has helped so many people in need and personally visited sick people and even donated his hard earned money to them. Jackson has donated a lot towards education, hospitals, research centers for the happiness and health of people. There are no tabloids or articles that can make anyone forget all that he has done for people. Michael Jackson was not only a legend in music, but also became a legend in the hearts of people around the world. Even though, he is not this world with us, his charity work continues to help the poor and his music is still played to this day.


BBC NEWS, ‘Michael Jackson ‘made some bad choices’, (26 September 2013)

‘Michael Jackson charity work’, look to the stars

‘Michael Jackson: critics review his legacy’, The Telegraph, (5:00AM BST 27 Jun 2009)

Duke A., “Bad news hurt Michael Jackson’s earning potential, witness says”, CNN Entertainment, (9:30 AM ET, July 30, 2013)

Rebuttal Rewrite- Flowers3399

Marijuana and Addiction

The claim advocates for weed make is that it is not possible to abuse, become addicted, or dependent on the drug, yet that is not true. Since advocates believe in their claim they tend to lean towards smoking weed to help with anxiety over pharmaceuticals. Marijuana users can experience dependency, abuse, and addiction.  

Marijuana consist of over 400 chemicals and all these chemicals enter the body when the smoke is inhaled. One of the main chemicals is THC. When THC enters the body it travels to the brain and its effects begin almost immediately. The body becomes very relaxed and a sense of happiness washes over. That might sound appealing but weed can start to hinder brain functions. In an article published by “National Institute on Drug Abuse,” the institute states, “but when THC activates the receptors, it
interferes with the normal functioning of these areas of the brain.” Interference with brain functions can cause more issues. A person can be a chronic smoker or an occasional one but both can still experience the same effects of weed once it enters the body. Even though the feelings marijuana leaves can sound appealing they are causing more harm and are not worth the couple hours of relaxation and ease.     

Contrary to popular belief marijuana users can become dependent on the drug. This drug is easily abused because most users do not think it is causing any harm to them physically or mentally so they continue to smoke it regularly. Constantly smoking it can lead to a mental dependency. The user begins to love how they feel when the drug is in their system and they want to always feel that way. Also, they begin to not feel “normal” when weed is not in their system. Users are beginning to have a dependency on the drug more often. In the article, “Marijuana Addiction and Abuse,” the author informs, “More than 4 million Americans are reported to have a dependence on marijuana.” The above statistic is already extremely high and can keep on increasing if people keep ignoring the fact that dependency on weed is possible.

Abusing the drug can happen as well. Most of the time the user does not realize they are abusing the drug. It is easy for abuse to happen because once the user has found easy access to the drug they can get it whenever they want. Most marijuana users start out at a young age and the abuse is already starting to begin. Starting out at a young age can harm the teen’s brain development. In the newsletter “Marijuana Abuse and Addiction,” the author MaryAnn DePietro exclaims, “chronic marijuana use during these early years of critical brain development can lead to long-term or permanent loss of mental abilities.” Abusing the drug at a young age can leave behind permanent damage. There are many negative health effects that can occur when someone starts to abuse the drug. Some of those effects include mood changes, memory issues, coordination loss, anxiety, lung damage, and paranoia. All of the above symptoms can start to cause hardship on the user and their family. Abuse eventually leads to an addiction.  

Addiction involves using the substance to the extreme. Those with an addiction do not lose focus on the substance they are craving. As they continue to use the substance they build up a tolerance and begin to need bigger dosages of the drug. Addiction causes changes in brain functionality. In an article called “What is Addiction” published by “American Psychiatric Association,”  it explains the changes in the brain, “areas of the brain that relate to judgment, decision making, learning, memory and behavior control.” All of the areas in the brain that change, when a substance is being addicted, are crucial. These same areas change when weed is smoked and THC is released into the brain. Addiction to weed is possible and should not be ignored.

A number of people argue that it is completely impossible to get addicted to weed but they are wrong. Marijuana abuse is more about consumption and addiction focuses on how hard it is for the user to stop smoking it all together or for a period of time. When the user becomes addicted they either constantly crave the drug itself or crave the drug’s effects. It is possible for to crave both. If the user tries to stop using the drug but they are experiencing withdrawal then they are addicted. Marijuana addiction is more common than originally believed. In the newsletter “Marijuana Abuse and Addiction” by DePietro provides proof of addiction, “according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about one in every 11 marijuana users will become addicted.” In a group of users, there will be at least one who is addicted to the drug. Just like abuse, addiction can cause mental illnesses like anxiety and depression to be present. Some users wind up in rehab for their addiction. In an article called “Marijuana Addiction is Real but Many Users Don’t Realize That” by Christine Vestal, the author interviewed a marijuana user who became addicted, “took him to Muir Wood… six weeks there, Pohl took intensive classes with about 10 other boys and talked to his therapist frequently.” The marijuana user Quintin Pohl became addicted to weed and had to go to a rehab center where he talked with a therapist about his addiction and what he was going through. Lastly, addiction to this drug can sometimes wind up in the emergency room. The article, “Marijuana History and Statistics” by Lauren Brande provides a shocking statistic, “in 2010, it was involved in 461,028 emergency department visits, up 64% since 2004.” Marijuana emergency visits have risen a huge amount since 2004 and have the potential to keep rising if users keep ignoring the fact that addiction can happen. It is important for those who smoke marijuana to realize that it does come with consequences of dependency, abuse, and addiction along with other health issues.


A.  (2018, November 19). Marijuana Addiction and Abuse – Understanding Marijuana Abuse. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

Brande, L. (2017, October 28). Marijuana History and Statistics. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

DePietro, M. (n.d.). Marijuana Abuse and Addiction. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

N.  (2007, June). Weeding Out the Grass. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

Vestal, C. (2018, June 24). Marijuana addiction is real but many users don’t realize that. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

What is Addiction. (n.d.). Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

Rebuttal Rewrite- beachgirl6

Who to Blame for Adolescent’s Social Media Use

Social media is its own type of world. Adolescents can connect to their friends by sharing pictures or witty remarks with one another through Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook. However, with this power comes danger. Teens don’t realize that they take social media for granted and don’t understand the consequences for their actions. Just because teens are the ones in charge of their activity online, doesn’t mean they should be responsible for their mistakes. They need a role model who can overlook their activity to make their they are being safe and careful with the information they share online. However, kids who come from abusive families are less likely to have this type of role model to help them. Without guidance, these teens are more likely to spread false information about themselves to conform to others, which can ultimately lead to lower self-esteem as they are not representing who they truly are. If their parents aren’t able to be with them during this time of their life, their development can be negatively altered.

Teens tend to be private from their parents as they don’t disclose everything that happens in their lives. The internet is a big factor in their life, and it can help them create their own identity and find out what type of person they want to be. Pamela Wisniewski of the University of Central Florida argues since teens are the ones engaging in social media, they should be the ones to deal with the risks of it. These adolescents are naïve to what they put out on the internet and are still learning how to protect themselves. Wisniewski argues that risk-taking is something that teens should engage in to understand the consequences of their actions online, such as strangers trying to communicate with them or spreading false information about themselves. Making mistakes is a part of growing up, and teens need to learn from their own mistakes to understand the value of privacy. Wisniewski states the adolescent resilience theory shows that teens can still live their lives and be successful despite the hardships they come across online. More importantly, Wisniewski thinks that “Teens are often able to cope and resolve negative online experiences without intervention from their parents.” If they don’t involve their parents, Wisniewski states these adolescents can learn to set boundaries, feel empathy towards others, and resolve arguments.

The few adolescents who experienced childhood maltreatment such as emotional abuse, as well as physical and emotional neglect, have don’t have the option to get their parents involved in their internet endeavors even if they wanted to. Furthermore, when adolescents suffer from this type of maltreatment, they can develop attachment issues which makes them unable to trust others and form new relationships. This makes them turn to the internet, as it acts as a safe haven for kids to reach out and connect to others. A research report from Psychiatry Research called “Childhood maltreatment and problematic social media use: The role of attachment and depression” states that according to the attachment theory, kids who had abusive relationships with parents aren’t able to form healthy relationships with people in their future. A study done with 1,029 students in North West England showed that out of 327 people who experienced some type of childhood maltreatment, 84% of them developed an insecure attachment that prevented them from forming new relationships because of negative trust issues towards other people. Whether it is anxious attachment where kids have negative self-esteem that results in the inability to create new relationships or avoidant attachment where kids distrust others and are unable to form close relationships, the common result is problematic internet use. Social media acts as a safe haven for these kids to escape their real-life hardships and find belonging, as their parents don’t provide that comfort already, therefore the presence of a role model is not available to them. Without a trusted adult, internet behaviors can get worse.

Children need a positive parent-child attachment so that they can become more responsible for their online endeavors. A research report from Telematics and Informatics called “Parents vs peers’ influence on teenagers’ Internet addiction and risky online activities” has found that “Weak parental-attachment was reported to be a risk factor for children’s risky online activities and internet addiction.” If kids have a strong relationship with their parents, then kids will participate in less “risky online activities.” Parents should then play an active role in their kid’s life to make sure their kids are safe on the internet. A study of 733 adolescents from ages 10 to 18 found that the more kids communicate with their parents, the less dangerous online activities occur. Without parent involvement, kids can prevent positive growth development if they just try to learn from their own mistakes.

When these kids use social media to feel a sense of comfort, they may spread false information about themselves so they can gain more friends and people to rely on. However, a research report from Springer Science and Business Media called “Growing Up Wired: Social Networking Sites and Adolescent Psychosocial Development” suggests that “adolescents have the option of choosing what self-identifying information to provide,” and that social media may influence development in a negative way if adolescents share false information. It is much easier to talk to people online as when someone is behind a computer screen, it is easier to be post anything that comes to mind. Moreover, since these kids don’t have a role model that can check up on them and tell them right from wrong, they won’t know what is best for them. This can lead to negative consequences as seen with the hyperpersonal model for communication, which the research report from Psychiatry Research explains “that adolescents engage in selective self-presentations online,” and that other user’s impressions and reactions of them influences their real-life behavior. This means that these adolescents may alter their identity to conform to others and not present their true personalities online, therefore creating a false persona and selecting the parts of themselves they want to share with others. Teens need a positive role model who can guide them to make the right decisions and present themselves online in an authentic way.

As social media is becoming more prevalent in adolescents’ lives, it is important to also consider the role parents play in their children’s internet use. Although Wisniewski proposes a “teen-centric” approach to online protection, it won’t be as good as if parents were to be involved with their children’s online behavior. Just because teens can pick and choose their friends and self-monitor themselves, doesn’t mean they should. Parents need to communicate with their kids so their attachment with them will become more trustworthy. However, this isn’t possible with kids who were raised by abusive parents. It is important for all kids to be safe online, and it starts with parents monitoring their children’s use. It is time to start taking responsibility for our children’s actions.



Chin-Hooi Soh, P., Wai Chew, K., Yeik Koay, K., & Hwa Ang, P. (2017, November 05). Parents vs peers’ influence on teenagers’ Internet addiction and risky online activities. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from

Shapiro, L., & Margolin, G. (2013, May 04). Growing Up Wired: Social Networking Sites and Adolescent Psychosocial Development. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from

Wisniewski, P. (2018, March). E Privacy Paradox of Adolescent Online Safety: A Matter of Risk Prevention or Risk Resilience? Retrieved November 29, 2018, from

Worsley, J. D., McIntyre, J. C., Bentall, R. P., & Corcoran, R. (2018, May 25). Childhood maltreatment and problematic social media use: The role of attachment and depression. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from



Rebuttal Rewrite — Kevinbacon

The Other End of the Barrel: The Side That Sees Correlation Between Gun Laws and Crime Rates

Sometimes it is not so easy to see the other side of an argument. In the case of correlation between strict gun policies and crime rates, there is another side that a light should be shown on. This side argues that if implemented correctly, tighter gun laws can reduce crimes rates, more specifically murder and suicide rates. In the article, “The Research is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives” the author, German Lopez, vouches for the side that believes in the positive effects of gun control. In the article Lopez makes the claim that more guns lead to more deaths. Lopez uses multiple graphs and illustrations to support his side. One of the illustrations he uses shows how there are 29.7 homicides by firearm per 1 million people in the U.S. This is substantially higher than the other countries listed in the chart. Switzerland comes in at second with 7.7 homicides per 1 million citizens. However Lopez only compares European nations to the U.S (with the exceptions of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia). These countries have far less people than the United States, and the citizens of each would most likely own firearms for different reasons. However, if you compare the violent gun deaths in the U.S to other countries as seen in “Gun Violence: How the U.S Compares to Other Countries” by Nurith Aizenman, the U.S’s violent gun deaths per 100,000 people is actually a fraction compared to Brazil, Colombia and other countries. The U.S.’s rate is 3.85 deaths per 100,000 people, this was substantially lower compared the Brazil’s 19.34 and Colombia’s 25.94. One might make the claim, “it is outrageous to compare the U.S to Colombia, a crime stricken country.” However, it is also ridiculous to compare the U.S’s gun caused homicide rates with Switzerland. Each country has a totally different population with different cultures and views. The events that go on in each country will be different, and cannot be compared on the same scale.

Lopez goes on to say that more gun laws will help decrease the U.S’s homicide rates by guns. One key factor, Lopez says, that attributes to the high rates of homicide, is the fact that Americans own the most guns. This heightened availability of firearms leads to a higher homicide rate. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership at 88.8 guns per 100 people. With more guns leaves more room for accidents along with a higher chance of crime. Since America has such an infatuation with firearms the rate of homicides carried out by a firearm should naturally go up. However, adding more gun laws to this mix will not be effective at solving this issue. The obsession Americans have with guns is not something that can be taken away by law. Gun ownership is something our founding fathers stood for, and this can be seen through the second amendment. Many Americans would rather die or be thrown in jail, rather then have their guns taken away. By implementing stricter policies, this will just anger the community who owns firearms. Most people will not listen to these rules. One might now say, “What about background checks to make sure the crazy people do not acquire weapons.” Well these crazy people can still buy guns on in the underground market. Until the government cracks down on the illegal buying and selling of firearms, many people who should not own guns, can buy them. Also, background checks will not decrease the amount of guns currently in the possession of U.S citizens. With more guns, more homicides might occur. This is an indisputable fact, however the way our nation should go about to solve this, is not through stricter gun policies.

In Brazil, researchers put much confidence in the positive results from gun control measures. New policies have been perceived as beneficial towards reducing the violence toll in Brazil. According to the article, “Reductions In Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalizations in Brazil After Gun Control,” firearm related mortality declined 8 percent from 2003 to 2004. More than a decade’s time had passed since an improvement like this had occurred. About 5,563 firearm related deaths had been avoided from these new legislations in 2004. The article advocates for these policies passed in the early 2000’s and provides evidence and data associated with the research. According to the article, Brazil has one of the highest homicide rates and about one person is murdered every twelve minutes. About 90% of all homicides that occur in the age group of 15-44 are carried out with a gun. The homicide numbers in Brazil double those of the United States. However, this shows that Brazil is in a different situation than the U.S. The crime rates cannot be compared between the two nations, therefor gun laws would have completely different outcomes in both places. There is a higher amount of overall crime in Brazil than there is in the U.S. In addition more murders are carried out with a firearm in Brazil. This signifies that they have a much larger gun problem than the U.S does. The results of these gun laws might have proved successful in Brazil, but the outcome of these policies in the U.S would most likely be totally different due to cultural and societal differences. Americans take pride and value in the 2nd amendment. This is why many of us own firearms. In Brazil many people need guns to protect themselves from violent people on the streets. The atmosphere in both countries can be polar opposites.


Aizenman, N. (2017, October 06). Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from

De Fátima Marinho de Souza, M., Macinko, J., Pereira Alencar, A., Carvalho Malta, D., & Libânio de Morais Neto, O. (2007, March/April). Reductions In Firearm-Related Mortality And Hospitalizations In Brazil After Gun Control. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from

Lopez, G. (2017, October 04). The research is clear: Gun control saves lives. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from