There is no way that tap water is better than bottled water. Lead can leech into the water through the pipes of the municipal water system and through the pipes of your home. Bottled water has to have a lot less lead than tap water. In actuality, the maximum standard for lead is less than the maximum standard in bottled water. Most homes in todays world are not built with copper pipes anymore and the water would have to sit in the pipes for a long time for any amount of lead to leech into the water. Most normal people use their tap water regularly throughout the day; so as long as you’re using your tap water for something daily, there should be no concerns about lead. However, a concern a consumer should have is the dangerous chemical used to make the plastic bottle their water is going into called DEHP. Water is definitely sitting in those bottles long enough for DEHP or some other type of chemical from the plastic to leech into the water. In 1986, amendments were made to the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 that required the EPA to set new standards limiting the concentration of lead in public water systems.


(I think I need to try to incorporate specific numbers and lengths of time. Is this along the lines of what I’m supposed to be writing though??)

Rebuttal- Veleze22

Technology Arises

     Technology is at a stage where it can solve just about any problem. 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 comparison to the publicly available data on the safety vehicles, organizations have no technology 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 detecting player head impact exposure and risk of concussion. STAR stands for Summation of Tests for the Analysis of Risk, the test relates on-field impacted hits to a series of 24 drop tests performed at four different impact locations and six impact energy levels. The test used 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. A new injury risk function was developed from 32 measured concussions and made exposed data to assess risk of concussion for each of the impacts. All the data from the 24 drop tests were combined into one number using the STAR formula that counted the predicted exposure and injury risk for one athlete for an entire full season of practices and games. The STAR evaluation equation gave consumers an important tool to assess the relative performance of football helmets. With that being said this device can key to preventing head injury for all players, even outside the sport of football. Coaches must be very attentive to their players and take notice in the number of impact blows these players receive because with this new technology in effect it will be up to them to monitor and distinguish when a player has been hit one too many times. It’s a coaches job to keep their players safe and to follow the guidelines received from their coaching association. This new device has been tested to its ability and the results speak for themself.

     Impacts to the front of the helmet occurred most frequently while recording data, and were followed by impacts to the rear, top, and side of the players helmets. Using these percentages, the number of blows to each player playing in a complete season were computed based on the hypothesis that a total of 1,000 head blows were experienced. This information basically tells you that for a single season, a player will experience an estimated 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. 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 substantially add up.

     In addition to the prevention of concussions, this past season the NFL launched an Injury Reduction Plan with the aim to reduce the number of concussions in the upcoming 2018 season. Following a 16 percent increase in concussions during the 2017 season, NFL Chief Medical Officer Dr. Allen Sills issued a call-to-action to try and reduce the number of concussions occurring during the season.

Sills stated, “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.”

     NFL leaders, clubs and the wide variety of experts in medicine, engineering and science who form the NFL medical committees developed a three point approach to drive behavioral changes. The NFL also created an educational video for players, coaches and club personnel about the concussion reduction strategy, this would inform everyone in the organization the risks and how they are approaching them. Leaders in the 2018 press conference think they have designed what they think are going to be steps that can immediately impact the number of concussions on the football field.

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

Preseason Practices

     The NFL wants their teams to take practices lightly. They don’t want players to hit full contact because it would prevent injury upon players and lower the risk of getting a concussion. Preseason only gets players ready for the regular season. It is not necessarily supposed to be taken serious. Players sometimes find themselves to be performing at very high-rate in the preseason and coaches do not want their players getting hurt and risking their regular season play. Depending on the injury, a player can be out for as long as a whole season, even longer. After getting hurt most players have to go through rehabilitation and build themselves back up to the point where they can play again, if that’s even possible.

 Better Performing Helmets

     The second part of the Injury Reduction Plan is a goal to get players out of lower-performing helmets and into better-performing helmets in an effort to decrease the risk of injury. Each year, helmets go through official testing by biomechanical engineers hired by the NFL and the NFL Players Association. Their job is to evaluate which helmets best reduce head impact severity. The results of the laboratory tests are displayed on posters and shared with NFL players, club equipment managers, as well as club medical, training and coaching staffs to help inform equipment choices and what’s best to wear. This year based on the results of the study and the opinions of the biomechanical experts involved, the NFL and NFLPA will not allow 10 helmet models from being worn by NFL players. It is important to remember that no helmet can completely protect a player against serious brain or neck injuries a player might sustain while playing football, and that the results of this testing should not be shared or passed down to collegiate, high school, or youth football.

 Rule Changes

     The third component of the Injury Reduction Plan is the enforcement of rules changes aimed at eliminating potentially risky behavior that could lead to injuries. Through the latest changes including the “Use of the Helmet” rule and kickoff modifications, the NFL is leveraging data in an effort to improve player safety and evolve the game. The NFL will not tolerate helmet-to-helmet contacts on players but most importantly the quarterback position. In past years the rule of helmet-to-helmet contact was not strictly enforced and sometimes officials would let the hit “slip.” In our present time these matters are taken very seriously. If a players fails to comprehend and follow the rules he will fined and/or suspended from a game.

In conclusion, the NFL is trying to decrease the amount of concussions their players are experiencing. As  previously stated, the STAR equation shows a direct correlation with players receiving direct impacts to their helmets. Depending on the location of the impact, depends on the severity of the concussion. The NFL wants to ensure the safety for their players on and off the field. In turn, that is why they created the three prong approach. Ensuring their players safety allows players to potentially experience a healthier long lasting life.


Rowson, Steven, and Stefan M. Duma. “Development of the STAR Evaluation System for Football Helmets: Integrating Player Head Impact Exposure and Risk of Concussion.” SpringerLink, Springer US, 7 May 2011,

“The 2018 Injury Reduction Plan: Initiatives to Advance Player Health and Safety.” NFL Play Smart, Play Safe,

Olson, et al. “’We Need to Protect the Brain’: Addressing the Growing Problem of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.” Current Psychiatry, Dowden Health Media, Inc., 1 Mar. 2016,

Rebuttal Argument- muggastackz

Cleary, crime in the United States will always continue to be around. It’s sad at the fact that people in society know that crime isn’t going to change because it happens more often than it should. Justifying the fact that crime rates are decreasing and crime is increasing but there are ideas that could potentially help change how crime is reported. More people in urban neighborhoods aren’t reporting a crime because they would be called a “snitch”. If people in the community are trying to help the situation, it will only continue to grow and get worst than what it is now.

Although crime will continue to happen, African-Americas make up a large population of people that are incarcerated for certain crimes. Automatically, they are targets in America and more so bound to do criminal activity. Growing up they were most likely introduced to gangs and weapons which allowed them to choose the lifestyle that was brought upon today. They are more likely to commit murders or homicides than white people do. Blacks are confronted more by the police because they are a threat to the community. A certain neighborhood can justify if a person will be either in jail or dead. Cities with high-crime control will have the most crime rates and crime because it is a natural effect on blacks in today’s society.

More people in society think that a violent city will have more violent and property crimes. Researchers found that “higher poverty levels are associated with higher crime levels.” When thinking about poverty, instantly it is found upon that there are more killings and robberies that are taking place at each second. It was found that this was only true for property crimes and not violent crimes. Now logically thinking,  it would make sense that violent crime is happening because certain gangs have feuds between them, or even accidentally killings are always happening in neighborhoods in poverty.  In an article, it states, “ Social disorganization theory argues that certain neighborhood characteristics—a low-income, transient population composed of people from different ethnic groups—”would lead to higher levels of crime, as this would weaken the structural bonds within a community” (Jacobs). Neighborhoods are big reasons on why certain crimes happen frequently than they should in areas. Many feel that crime will be reduced if criminals are starting to get convicted for their crimes and if the neighborhoods are starting to become more positive and have a better outlook on the community as a whole. If more neighborhoods have programs or events that can bring a community together than diminish them and allow them to create more violence. A positive neighborhood could reduce crime and property crime will start to decrease instead of increasing constantly.

Along with the fact that urban communities are diminishing people, the police force is also adding to crime rates in America. Cops are killing African-Americans due to police brutality in the world. These are obviously reported crimes because either victims or witnesses see this cruel activity and take it to social media or at least tell someone about what they saw. Now that police brutality is becoming popular in the past couple of years, police try to stay away from black neighborhoods to try to reduce conflict. Blacks tend to stay away from the police now because they see what happens to other people who are just like them. Since cops stay away from black neighborhoods, this means that crime is increasing.

They are staying away which means people in urban communities think that they can get away with anything because no one is reprimanding them. When people see police brutality happening in social media, this just encourages them to do criminal activity. Michael Barone, a writer for National Review states “Black Americans were the primary victims of the huge crime increase starting in the late 1960s, and they will be the primary victims again if the Ferguson effect continues to result in more homicides”(Barone).  Police officers break down people in the community which allows them to feel less than what they are. Resulting in the fact that police brutality is affected mental health, this also attracts people to do criminal behavior because they aren’t in the right state of mind. Police brutality is creating crime to increase. People in society demand more police to come in and help, but what is that going to do? Many theories have been tried to help bring police and people together. They have even tried to bring back certain models to maybe help reduce crime as a whole. This effect only created more people to go against this and it failed. We think that police are supposed to help when in today’s world they are defeating the purpose. If police brutality wasn’t as bad as it is, there wouldn’t be skyrocketing crimes happening.

There is clearly no way to get around the fact that crime is going to completely go to go away. Whether it may be a small or severe crime, it still classifies as a crime in the United States. People do senseless crimes that result with them getting arrested and added to the statistics. Crime will take its toll, however, a person will approach the idea. the number of crimes happening can definitely be cut down a lot. More reported crimes can help reduce the number of crime rates and also the amount of crime in America.

Rebuttal Essay – eaglessb52

Objections in Policy

Many arguments and objections come about when discussing the government. Given the nature of my final essay it is sure to raise some counter arguments. First off my argument is that quick changes in policies are overall intended to be good for the country but usually always end up being a hurt for the country. These quick policy changes include but are not limited to things like tariffs and immigration.

One major point that is brought up is immigration. Since as far back as we can remember immigration has been a huge forefront of the American political system. With both parties pretty much divided on that alone. Left leaning individuals believe that immigration restrictions should be lessened for people in need. The same cannot be said for the opposite who favor strict border control and limited immigration.

In some cases rapid immigration policy is needed to help some of the issues of a country. Germany in 2015 was suffering from declining birth rates and their economy was at equilibrium, which is a fancy way of saying that their economy was at a point where it can’t grow any more unless more people came into the country. The only two ways that could be fixed is if more people got pregnant or people entered the country. In the article, “Immigration boosts Germany’s economy,” details that as of 2016 Germany’s revenues were higher than expenditures for the third straight year. A crucial chunk of Germany’s population comes from a migrant background and the number of foreign specialists in Germany’s key industries really add to the point that immigration is benefit for society.

But when we solve one issue like stagnation in the economy we forget about other issues that arise when we bring people into our country. As Jan C. Ting questioned in his article, “Downsides of High Immigration,” “How will we provide good jobs, good educational opportunities, good health care, and good housing for 129 million additional residents given our current track record? How many more vehicles will be added to our highways? How many more millions of barrels of oil will we have to import from the Middle East, or extract from deep-water wells drilled into the ocean floor? How many more millions of tons of coal will have to be burned, or nuclear power plants built, to generate electricity for another 129 million people?” In addition to theses questions there’s countless more what ifs that are brought up once we make the decision to bring people into the country. ”

When bringing immigrants into the country there is an extreme financial cost that is invested in order to help them assimilate into society. Education and proper English as a second language classes are a must when in the work force coming from an immigrant background. New people means more chance for accidents to happen. Sometimes a hospital trip is needed and without the proper health insurance it is almost impossible to receive good health care. A car is a must in most areas in America which leads to an increase in the need for fossil fuels in order to power them. Housing is a must for people entering the country and sometimes they can’t afford a home. The real issue is that although immigration might be beneficial for us, it may not be beneficial for the people who left poverty to get a chance at a new life only to be in poverty again.

Another thing the government can do is implement policy that changes the social behavior of the business environment. The government could potentially impose taxes on businesses that use harmful fossil fuels and other non renewable resources and give tax benefits to businesses who use renewable energy. This is called a market catalyst. It’s intention is to allow tax exemptions in a particular sector for investors to take interest. The major downside that many people overlook is that imposing on a particular sector more taxes or duties than are necessary will make the investors lose interest.

In the article, “The Market Catalyst Nobody Is Talking About,” mentions that starting this past month, the Federal Reserve is scheduled to reduce the holdings on its balance sheet by $50 billion per month. Which is $20 billion more than from April to June of this year. This implies that the Federal Reserve cannot reinvest the principal from its maturing securities. The intention behind this is that the economy is in a pretty good state so the Fed can lay off on some of it’s holdings in order to use that money to invest into the economy. When the Fed’s balance sheet  is reduced and at the same time the central bank is raising interest rates adds an unnecessary element of complexity to the monetary tightening process, as stated in the “Business Insider” article, “There’s one big problem with the Fed’s plan to unwind its gigantic balance sheet.” In the article it also mentions that officials themselves acknowledge that they are less sure about the impact of a reduction in asset holdings on financial conditions than they are with the more familiar tool of an interest rate increase.

Governments get money from taxation to spend how it chooses. Government spending is a good thing and is necessary in the U.S. economy. Without it the country couldn’t function. There is no disagreement there. Entrepreneurs take risks in making investments and starting businesses. Any increase in taxes will strongly discourage them from doing so.  When the government increases spending it in turn eats at the limited pool of government savings. This leads the government not to have enough money to reinvest to make a good return on their investments. Reduction in private investments shrinks production of goods and services. That, in turn, may lead to the elimination of jobs.

Another argument that is brought up is the issue of minimum wage, permit regulations, and trade regulations.  For example, periodic health inspections must be carried out in all restaurants. Businesses might spend a lot of money and time to comply with regulations that ultimately prove to be ineffective and unnecessary. Workers constantly ask for higher wages but ultimately businesses cannot afford to run effectively and give workers a higher wage like 15 an hour and run effectively. Fair and effective regulations, however, promote business growth.

All of the arguments presented are valid points that are brought up constantly in political debates. Some of them depend on a little more optimism rather than pessimism others depend on how fair the government treats the independent business owners and the country’s citizens.



Bove, R. X. (2018, October 29). Dick Bove: The Federal Reserve could be dragging us into a recession. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
Costa, P. N. (2017, May 25). There’s one big problem with the Fed’s plan to unwind its gigantic balance sheet. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
Equity, L. I. (2018, September 12). The Market Catalyst Nobody Is Talking About. Retrieved from
Financial Conditions: Pinning Down Market Catalysts For The Rest Of 2018. (2018, August 29). Retrieved from
Higgins, T., Vardy, N., Skousen, M., & Versace, C. (2018, September 05). 5 Market Catalysts to Determine the Rest of 2018. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
How the Fed’s Unwinding Will Work. (2017, September 19). Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
Lorenz, A. (2017, May 17). Immigration boosts Germany’s economy. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
Ting, J. C. (2011, October 11). Fewer Babies, for Better or Worse. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from
Williams, F. (2018, June 26). The Effects of Government Policies on Businesses. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from

Rebuttal- misterfries19

Throughout time, people have commonly used music as a healing device. African slaves would sing songs while working in the southern heat. When a soldier dies, the U.S. Military plays “Taps” at the soldier’s funeral. After World War 2, soldiers recovering from injuries or trauma found relief from their pain thanks to musicians who would come and perform in hospitals.

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 that has nowadays been de-stigmatized is therapy. This includes physical therapy, but emphasizes practices designed for the mind and emotion, 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 hard to correctly dose, and dangerous if you happened to go over your dosage. 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. It is no wonder that Americans were being prescribed more anti-depressants.

After anti-depressant prescriptions had really hit their peak, people began to seriously question the drug’s abilities. With more people using anti-depressants than ever, it was always more likely for new complaints and side-effects to be reported. By the 2010’s, anti-depressant usage was 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 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 were still depressed. Thus, the theory that depression relied strictly on serotonin levels was debunked.

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

So, what are the other ingredients of this anti-depression recipe? If the drugs are not enough, what should be done? 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. Music can also be a tool in treating depression. How? 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. 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 answer? No. But neither are anti-depressants. Taking one or the other will not rid anybody of their depression. Does anybody really know what will? No. 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 – CarsonWentz11

Gun Control Statistics are Too Broad

The topic of gun control is very controversial, in which people will go back and forth on whether there should be more restrictions on buying guns, and if these type of laws even lowers gun violence, especially homicide.  I have set out to find two very similar cities, by characteristics, in which they also are in states with different gun laws, and investigate the differences in gun violence, especially homicide.  I have discovered two cities, Houston, Texas, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which they are very similar.  Both of these cities have a very close population, a very similar percentage by race, but the states of Texas and Pennsylvania have different gun laws.  I found that the city of Philadelphia, yet being in the state of Pennsylvania with more strict gun laws than Texas, had no only more gun violence, but a higher homicide rate.  These findings are very narrow and only include two cities, and obviously can’t be correlated to the whole country.  On the other hand, statistics that have been done around the country, or even in other countries, on this gun control topic, can’t be correlated down to specific cities, like Philadelphia or Houston, because every city, state, and country has differences.

In German Lopez’s “The Research is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives,” he explains his reasoning on why he disagrees with those who say that gun control doesn’t actually reduce gun violence, especially homicides.  Lopez gathered plenty of research on this topic for his writing, but there are some flaws with the information.  One of the major pieces of evidence Lopez uses for his argument is a researched review of more than 130 studies on the effects of gun control from 10 different countries.  Lopez goes on to use these findings to support his argument stating, “The findings were clear: “The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.””  Not only did he use this review for his his argument, but he also used statistics from the United Kingdom and Australia on how gun control is effective.  Both of these example Lopez uses is good for attacking an argument about gun control in a broad way, such as world wide here.  On the other hand, my argument is narrowed down far more than world wide statistics and looks into two particular cities.  Gun statistics can change from town to town, so why is Lopez comparing gun control effects from different countries.  Each country has there own characteristics and it is impossible to correlate from country to country.

More key pieces of evidence Lopez uses in his argumentative article are research done by Harvard researchers and by a Boston University researcher, about the correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide.  The Harvard researchers stated that there research “shows a correlation between statewide firearm homicide victimization rates and household gun ownership,” and in the Boston University research they found, “That each percentage point increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate.”  The major problem with this evidence that can reject my argument is that the areas where this research was done by these two Universities, was not in Philadelphia or Houston.  Since this information wasn’t gathered in the two cities of my argument, the information can’t reliably be correlated to everywhere else in the country expecting to have the same results.

Altogether, there isn’t that much empirical data on gun control effects on gun violence and homicide.  Unfortunately, for the data that is available for us, it is very broad and a lot of false correlations are made.   Data on effects of gun control from other countries can not necessarily be correlated to different countries, and that goes the same for data on certain parts of our country being correlated to the rest of the country.  Every city, state, and country is has different characteristics and laws which play big factors and correlating data to other places can sometimes be misleading.


Lopez, German. “The Research Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives.” Vox, Vox, 4 Oct. 2017,


Rebuttal Argument -Ivonid12

It’s not Just the Quarterback Y’Know


In America today, the most watched sport is easily football. Millions tune in every week to watch some of the greatest athletes in the world battle it out to win the game and ultimately, the Lombardi trophy. The players that get the most press, attention, and credit is easily the quarterbacks, as most ignore the other ten positions on the offensive side of the ball, and eleven on the defensive side of the ball. For many, the quarterback is a must have to win in the NFL, and if you don’t have a franchise guy elite guy, don’t even think about winning. After all, they control the offense, who the ball goes to, and how a play is made. The position is easily the most debated in talks of football, and will continue to be so. Analysts continue to argue the notion that franchise quarterbacks are the reason teams win football games, since the great ones are the reason their teams win football games.

Even though many say a great quarterback is important for a team’s success, it is most definitely not the end  all be all for a football team. So much goes into a football team, that it is foolish to say that the only reason people win is because of the quarterback. Football is regarded as the most team oriented sport, as single players cannot win you football games in contrast to the MLB, NBA, and to some extent the NHL. There have been plenty of teams in the past that have won, or appeared in Super Bowls, and have not had a franchise guy. For example, the 2015 Denver Broncos’ quarterback was a washed up, 39 year old Peyton Manning, who only threw 9 touchdowns to 17 interceptions. To make matters worse for Manning, he was benched midway through the season for his back up, Brock Osweiler, and yet Manning returned for the playoffs and “led” his team to a Super Bowl. Most who watched the game praised Manning as he retired weeks after, but ultimately knew it was the defense that carried the football team. The Denver defense was ranked first that season, and earned a first round bye for the playoffs, cruising their way to a championship. Another great example of a team lacking a quarterback but ultimately winning the Super Bowl would be the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, would also had a liability at quarterback. Trent Dilfer split time with other quarterbacks throughout the reason before starting the playoffs, yet the Ravens still reached the Super Bowl and ended up winning it in 2000.

When it comes to football teams, coaching is just as important as your players. Whether it is the head coach, offensive coordinator, or defensive coordinator coaching can be more important than the players actually playing the game. Even the special teams coach can help win football games. Great coaching can really elevate a quarterback, and over the many seasons played, has proven to be true time and time again. For example, recently drafted quarterback Jared Goff was terrible his rookie season under then head coach, Jeff Fisher. After Fisher was fired, and the Los Angeles Rams then hired Sean McVay, Goff has produced as one of the best quarterbacks in league last season, and this season as well, as the Rams are currently 8 – 0. In this case, surely the coach should recieve more credit, as without him, the Rams most likely wouldn’t be in the position they are in today. Even though McVay’s amazing contributions are on offense, defensive coaches elevate a team just as much. Another example of this would be Vic Fangio, current defensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears. Before coaching for the Bears, Fangio was on the 49ers, and elevated the team’s defense to a Super Bowl appearence during the 2012 season. Although they lost that Super Bowl, without Fangio the 49ers probably don’t appear in that Super Bowl, considering their quarterback situation was great with then starter Colin Kaepernick. Now with Fangio on the Bears, they are also a top defense in the NFL. The Bears are currently 4 – 3, fighting for a division title versus the Minnesota Vikings, and are once again somewhat weak at the quarterback position. Coaching is extremely important in the NFL, and with offenses producing more than ever, having a great coach is very important.

When it comes to a quarterback’s needs, besides coaching, their most important need is the offensive line, easily the most underrated position in all of football. The quarterback definitely needs good receivers to throw to, and a running back to run the ball for him, but the offensive line can make or break a quarterback. The quarterback needs time to throw the football and a bad offensive line will not provide that. A great example would be the Giants of recent seasons, who have given up the most sacks in the league at times. Their team is undoubtedly great in terms of talent, but their offensive line is terrible, and the whole team has suffered because of it. They are currently 1 – 6, and their season is currently done for.

The NFL is easily the most team oriented major sport in the world.  Teams in the NFL require so much from coaching, to defense, to offense, and  even managing to be great, while no other sport can say that. Ever player has their job to do, and the teams that do their jobs the best, are the ones that win the most. A great quarterback can make your team better, but if the rest of the team isn’t good then the team will suffer. Whether it’s the MLB, NHL, NBA, or soccer, no other sport requires every aspect of the the team to be great to be successful. The NFL can.


 “2000 Baltimore Ravens Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

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

“2015 Denver Broncos Statistics & Players.”,

Rebuttal- Peter Bomersbach


The debate on whether violent video games can cause aggressive behaviors or not change anything at all. Violent video games lead to aggressive behavior, change in social life and much more and is most commonly found within various studies on humans. Then there are studies where researchers try to discover the effects of violent video games and find no correlation between a change in behaviors and playing mature video games. The reaction of playing violent video games depends all on the personality of the human playing the video game. You can have a child with an outgoing personality have 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- D2Forsaken

With Net Neutrality, people are able to post inappropriate things that others don’t want to see. Without Net Neutrality we can deny people from doing that and make sure the internet is a safe place. With Net Neutrality you can restrict websites yourself but some are able to find ways to bypass that. But without Net Neutrality we could deny people who are underage from accessing certain websites without a verification of who they are first. While blocking sites like those it is possible to crack down on  peer-to-peer file-sharing and make illegal downloads nearly impossible. People could also pay for only what they want and not extra things that are a waste of money.

If people only want the internet and not cable, they could choose that on their plans. Instead of paying for two and only using one service, you could pay for just one service and be aloud to use that service. Also if you don’t use the internet a lot you could pay so you could only get it on the days/weeks you need it the most. Without Net Neutrality prices, overall carrier prices would go down for those who don’t need access to everything and for those who don’t need the fastest speed. Not only that, it could also cause for less companies to pop up on the internet besides the “big” companies.

Because Net Neutrality gives everyone an equal ISP causing equal customers so no one company can own the internet.” Net neutrality hurts ISPs because they pay to manage their buildings and offices, bringing them less profit,” says Monica Ramirez author of Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality. With Net Neutrality giving companies equal benefits, and not charging us the consumer it’s forced to charge companies like Netflix. Charging Netflix more many to be on their provider, it makes us the consumer pay even more money a month to access it.




Criminalization of Abortion Kills Women

Abortion is often referred to as a demonic practice that consists in taking away the lives of innocent children. For example, in the article “Why is abortion immoral,” Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy at the University of Kansas, states that what makes abortion wrong is that it deprives unborn children from enjoying future experiences of life. According to this view, legalizing abortion  is  one of the greatest misfortunes because it exterminates the unborn child’s opportunity to value the experience of living and to desire the continuity of this experience. Human beings have the inherent right to life regardless of their stage of development, Marquis claims. By that he means that the life and future of a fetus are identical to those of any human being. It is argued that every legislative system should adopt restrictive abortion laws to protect the lives of unborn children.

Marquis and others claim that abortion violates the right to life and that such practice should be strictly prohibited in order to protect the life of the unborn child. The problem with this categorical position is that the legalization of abortion does not increase abortion rates. Instead, it prevents women from accessing  clandestine procedures that expose them to death. Even when restrictive abortion laws exist, innumerable unsafe abortions are performed regardless of their legal and hygienic settings. Such laws fail to protect human life and tragically cause a tacit form of discrimination in which women who live in poor communities are more likely to die as a result of unsafe abortion.

It is undeniable that the ideal situation would be that abortion was part of fantasy. However, these situations occur in real life even if restrictive abortion laws exist. The problem is whether the solution proposed, the establishment of restrictive abortion laws, successfully prevents abortions from happening or not. According to Susana Lerner and Agnès Guillaume, approximately 19 million unsafe abortions were carried out outside the legal system in the 2000’s. Among these clandestine procedures, it is estimated that about 4 million induced abortions were performed in Latin American countries, regions that present the highest abortion rates and where restrictive abortion laws are more severe. Restrictive abortions laws do not ensure the disappearance of abortion practices in society. Abortion rates in Chile, Argentina, and Peru, countries where abortion is severely penalized, indicate that about 50 abortions are carried out for every one thousand pregnant women. At the same time, the abortion rates corresponding to countries with more liberal abortion laws, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, show that for every one thousand women in pregnancy, about 10, or less, abortions are performed. Restrictive abortion laws are ineffective as preventive laws and it is necessary to get rid of the misconception that liberalizing abortion laws instantly increases abortion rates.

If the main objective of establishing restrictive abortion laws is to protect human life, it is necessary to take into account not only the life of the unborn child, but also the life of the mother. Restrictive abortion laws  fail to protect human life because they expose many women to death. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), restrictive abortion laws lead women to access clandestine abortion. Unfortunately, around 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, resulting in approximately 80,000 maternal deaths. Maternal mortality resulting from unsafe abortion is somehow an implicit consequence of restrictive abortion laws; in other words, these laws implicitly cause the discontinuation of the experience of living for many women. This phenomenon must stop being invisible to society and must be taken into account when adopting restrictive abortion laws.  It is a matter of comprehending that establishing restrictive abortion laws increases the exposure of women to death during clandestine procedures. If the criminalization of abortion is  useless as a preventive mechanism and it is also the cause of additional deaths, restrictive abortion laws might not be worth.

Criminalization of abortion generates outrageous situations where women risk their lives accessing clandestine procedures and even performing self-induced abortion. Making abortion illegal creates an implicit situation of social injustice where women who belong to the highest social classes are more likely to access safe abortions because they can afford these procedures regardless of their legal status. According to Susana Lerner and Agnès Guillaume, a study conducted in the poorest rural areas of  Latin America nations indicates that about 73% of women who are part of the most marginalized communities practice self-induced abortions or obtain abortions from non-professional medical personnel. In their state of desperation to end unwanted pregnancies, many women belonging to poor communities are even willing to poison themselves. Lisa Haddad and Nawal Nour state, “Unsafe abortion methods include drinking toxic fluids such as turpentine, bleach, or drinkable beverages mixed with livestock manure.” Being this the case, in its attempt to protect and highlight the value of human life, restrictive abortion laws in fact are putting life itself at risk and creating a space of economic exclusion in which the lives of low-income women seem to be less valuable than the lives of those who belong to high socio-economic classes.


Don Marquis (1989).”Why abortion is immoral,” The Journal of Philosophy. pp. 183-202. Retrieved from

Haddad LB, Nour NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstetric Gynecol. 2009;2(2):122

Lerner, S., & Guillaume, A. (n.d.). Las adversas consecuencias de la legislación restrictiva sobre el aborto: Argumentos y evidencias empíricas en la literatura latinoamericana.

World Health Organization (WHO), (1998), Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality, Ginebra, WHO.

Warriner IK and Shah IH, eds., Preventing Unsafe Abortion and its Consequences: Priorities for Research and Action, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006. pp. 1-14.