Rebuttal — Wisemann101

Physician-assisted suicide is a situation where the physician assists the patient to end his/her life due to an uncontrollable health condition. When a patient is suffering a chronic disease, which cannot be healed at a particular time or cannot heal completely can request a specific prescription of drugs to end his life to avoid much-prolonged pain. In the scenario, the doctor intends to hasten the dying process of the patient knowingly (Copeland, 87). Sometimes the condition is commonly referred to as euthanasia, but it is different. Some laws and regulations have been set to address the issue of whether physician-assisted suicide is valid and lawful or not. There should be some palliative care and trials in all means before assisting the patient to die. This death shortcut should be the last alternative when all sorts of palliative care have failed to bear fruits (Copeland, 87). Some people have argued that patients have a right for physician-assisted death (PAD); they imply that patients should be allowed to decide what they wish to happen to their lives. This essay analyses the causal and effect relationship that will result in the case of granting people the rights to physician-assisted suicide.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. First, the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence (Sommerville, 2014). Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. 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 (Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, 2013). 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 (Sommerville, 2014). 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?

The views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, isn’t 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 (Denton, Levett, Bradley, & Thoma, 2016). 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 (2015) 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.

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 (Hoxhaj, 2014). 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.

Anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with (Sommerville, 2014). 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 (2013) 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.

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 (Gopal, 2015). 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

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”

Rebuttal — 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 gun laws and crime rates, there is another broad side that a light should be shown on. This side beleives t of those who are in favor of gun laws and believe that if implemented correctly, they can reduce crime rates. In the article, “The Research is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives” the author, German Lopez, makes the claim that it is useful to look at the effects gun control policies have had on foreign countries. He uses Britain and Australia as examples. The results in these countries showed that gun murders and homicides might have decreased, but more people were being killed by other weapons such as knives and by blunt force trauma. The amount of mass shootings and killings in these nations was low compared to America’s. These gun laws might have stopped killings from guns, but individuals are still being killed by different means. This leads to the conclusion that foreign gun laws shouldn’t influence what Americas policy should be. Lopez also makes the claim that more guns lead to more deaths. Common sense allows us to assume the fact that if there are more guns present in a nation, then there will be more gun deaths. 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 there are more possibilities for crimes and homicides. Being such a different style country from others who have guns, such as Australia and Britain, gun policies might prove useful in deterring crime and homicide rates resulting from firearms. However, it is difficult to test if these policies would work because the government is very strict when it comes to enforcing them.

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. Brazil has one of the highest homicide rates and about one person is murdered every twelve minutes (Souza, Macinko, Alencar, Malta, Neto, 507). About 90% of all homicides that occur in the age group of 15-44 are carried out with a gun (Souza, 507). 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.


References:  The research is clear: Gun control saves lives. Lopez, G, 4 October 2017. 30 October 2018.

“Reductions in Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalizations in Brazil After Gun Control.” UpDate: International Report. Maria de Fátima Marinho de Souza, James Macinko, Airlane Pereira Alencar, Deborah Carvalho Malta, and Otaliba Libânio de Morais Neto, March/April 2007. 15 October 2018.


Dehydration; there’s a lot more to it

We give little thought to water, the fluid that preserves our health, maintains our body temperature, prevents headaches, and most importantly, keeps us hydrated.For many water is the only way to stay hydrated for daily living or strenuous activity. Overwhelming evidence proves that water maintains the equal body temperature needed for healthy blood flow and that performance suffers for athletes who don’t drink enough water prior to an event.

Even though water is the go to drink, it is the easiest type of drink to get no matter where we are and it is the most important fluid that enters our body. There are still people who refuse to drink water, say it is not the best fluid to keep us hydrated and argue that there are other fluids that can do a better job than water. Some of these arguments could be true, but could only be true to some. If there are individuals who do not need water in order to live a healthy lifestyle and do not become dehydrated without water then they happen to be lucky, hard to find individuals.

As researched prior it is important that one drinks at least 8-ounce glasses of water a day in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle and stop themselves from the awfulness of dehydration. The long lasting idea that anything other than water such as iced tea, coffee, tea, and sodas dehydrated you and to stay away from them. However, a recent study found that no scientific studies were found in support of 8 x 8. Rather, surveys of food and fluid intake on thousands of adults of both genders, analyses of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals, strongly suggest that such large amounts are not needed because the surveyed persons were presumably healthy and certainly not overtly ill. This conclusion is supported by published studies showing that caffeinated drinks (and, to a lesser extent, mild alcoholic beverages like beer in moderation) may indeed be counted toward the daily total, as well as by the large body of published experiments that attest to the precision and effectiveness of the osmoregulatory system for maintaining water balance (Valtin, 283). With that being said, it shows that maybe 8 ounces of just water are not needed daily in order to keep an individual hydrated and without those 8 ounces a person will not become ill. It also brings forth something that not many people know and that is that all of those caffeinated drinks such as iced tea, coffee, and soda can be counted towards the total of how much fluid you are consuming daily that contributes to hydration.

When it comes to achieving any goal there are always strategies to do so. For example in order to be hydrated each day people set strategies such as drinking a certain amount of water by this time, the next amount of water 3 hours later and so on so that they can make sure they are hydrated each day and drinking the amount of water that their body requires. Some beg to differ, for example there was an experiment done to examine the effect of various combinations of beverages on hydration status in healthy living males. The men consumed different combination of beverages including beverages that were carbonated, caffeinated caloric, non-caloric and coffee. Before this took place body weight, urine and blood were measured as well as afterwards. There was no significant differences in the effect of various combination of beverages on hydration status of healthy adult males.Advising people to disregard caffeinated beverages as part of the daily fluid intake is not substantiated by the results of this study. The across-treatment weight loss observed, when combined with data on fluid-disease relationships, suggests that optimal fluid intake may be higher than common recommendations. Further research is needed to confirm these results and to explore optimal fluid intake for healthy individuals (Grandjean, 591-600). This is another counterargument to my thesis that only drinking water is the key to staying hydrated each day. Since there was no significant difference in the males being studied who were drinking all different types of fluid compared to the ones who were just drinking water, it makes us question what are these different fluids doing to our internal organs that need water each day? That study disagrees with those individuals who come up with hydration strategies and believe those strategies are not necessary.

Within this argument, sports and strenuous activity have been important because hydration is even more essential to those individuals compared to others because dehydration can effect their performance. The main aim or aims of sports drink consumption do vary according to the exercise situation, but are likely to be one or more of the following: to stimulate rapid fluid absorption, to supply carbohydrate as a substrate for use during exercise, to speed re- hydration, to reduce the physiological stress of exercise, and to promote recovery after exercise. Water is not the optimum fluid for ingestion during en- durance exercise, and there is compelling evidence that drinks containing added substrate and electrolytes are more effective. Increasing the carbohydrate content of drinks will increase the amount of fuel which can be supplied, but will tend to decrease the rate at which water can be made available. (Shirreffs, 25-28). Taken from that, water is not the best drink for athletes to drink during their strenuous activity like it always has been, there must be other fluids that they incorporate in order to keep their performance up because if not their body can shut down and not perform to the best of their ability.

There is simply no way that anyone can avoid drinking water completely and still live a healthy lifestyle. There may be some days that one does not need to drink as much water as another day and can consume the other beverages such as soda, coffee, or alcoholic beverages but those fluids need to be combined with the consumption of water. Dehydration will always be as bad as it is made out to be because of how it effects the inside organs of your body, it takes a toll on you. Dehydration may affect some worse than it affects others, but it will never be a positive effect always negative.


Grandjean AC, Reimers KJ, Bannick KE, Haven MC. The effect of caffeinated, non-caffeinated, caloric and non-caloric beverages on hydration. J Am Coll Nutr. 2000;19(5):591–600. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shirreffs SM. The optimal sports drink. Schweizerische zeitschrift fur sportmedizin und sporttraumatologie. 2003;51(1):25–30.

[I followed the link you provided to Google Scholar for this source, BeachGirl, and discovered I was still one click away from the material. Here’s the actual link you should be using:

I could anchor it to the title for you if you like, but you’ll benefit more if I demonstrate to you again how to do it for yourself. You’ll need the skill for your Bibliography.]

Valtin H. “Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.” Really? Is there scientific evidence for “8× 8”? Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002;283(5):R993–1004. PubMedGoogle Scholar

Rebuttal Rewrite– NamasteBean

My Worthy Opponent Is Wrong

       Social media is now the main source for everything a millennial desires; communication, quick answers and fashion trends. Most young adults can not go very long without checking their phones and its has become more and more evident that an addiction issue is at hand. The results from excessive use of social media are believed by many to include depression and jealousy, leading to an overall dissatisfaction with life. My goal is to further prove this hypothesis. Blogger Janet Anthony’s article titled “8 Proven Ways How To Use Social Media for Motivation” has not only proven her to be my rightful opponent, but the article itself is flawed and potentially gives dangerous advice.

       First off, making the claim that social media is good for recharging the brain sounds a bit absurd from the jump; and unfortunately for Anthony, the source provided to back this claim actually disproves it altogether. Yes, taking a break and allowing your body to re-charge is extremely important and although this is agreed by both Antony and Neil Patel (author of the source,) however their approach to re-charing are quite opposite.  A warning on what not to do during this break, clear as day, states from that same origin to “stay away from your screen.” Although Anthony may believe her conclusion to be true, the evidence given for her claim was insufficient.

       Social relationships are important to one’s mental health, no doubt. Another reason for using social media for motivation, as quoted by Anthony is “they can support you when times are dark;” ‘they” is referring to the people you surround yourself with, as explained further in the article. Although this is not relevant to the main argument, this evidence could be trying to prove that social media relationships are now more essential than human to human interaction, which could never be the case. Also, having followers does not qualify as having “people around us.” We are social beings and we need real, social interaction to survive in our environment.

       Now, let’s make it known that social media can be motivating to a certain extent; her claims, however prove her lack of research on the matter.  Inspirational pages and online support can surely improve one’s motivation to a certain degree, but turning to social media to reach their goals is far from the approach people should be taking. Most motivational pages are based on false realities and there is such a lack of truth on social media that you can never know if the advice given on these pages is sincere. People will only post what they want you to see and this leads users to expect to be able to reach unrealistic goals, leading to depression; the reason you can’t get your body to look like your favorite instagram model no matter how accurately you follow her workouts is because although the model may be displaying herself working out healthily, what she is not showing you is her daily battle with anorexia or bulimia. Motivational pages may be just as unrealistic as social media itself.



Anthony, Janet. “8 Proven Ways How To Use Social Media for Motivation.” The Next Scoop, The Next Scoop, 2018,

Patel, Neil. “When, How, and How Often to Take a Break.” Inc., 11 Dec. 2014,

Umberson, Debra, and Jennifer Karas Montez. “Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 51, no. 1_suppl, 2010, doi:10.1177/0022146510383501.

Rebuttal Essay -KinGGkunta

Crimes dwell in our neighborhoods; it is as if they are the stronghold of our societies since the time of our ancestors. Just the other day there was a synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh; this adds up to the numerous mass shooting cases our society face- In 2 years, 2017-2018, the U.S have had about 639 incident of a mass shooting(Courtland). In 2016 the U.S had a 4.1 percent increase in violent crimes, while crimes on properties fell to a 1.3 percent, which includes the 19.1 percent overall burglary rate in the United States (2016). The United States saw a flashing number of about 1,515,096 burglaries, in other words, a 4.6 percent decrease in the numbers of 2015 (Crime). Even though the numbers look huge, compared to the total population of the United States, crimes on properties are heading in the right direction. Crimes such as burglary which is on a steady decrease according to the 2016 FBI crime report statistics. Burglary cases are dropping steadily because of the new innovative technology that helps us keep our homes safe even when we are not around. Home securities, along sides our law enforcement officers, have done a swell job at keep burglars at bay.

Let’s take a look at the City of Old Bridge, a small suburban neighborhood in North- Central Jersey with a population of about 66,673 according to the 2016 census. Old bridge has a crime index of 65, which implies it is safer than 65% of U.S. Cities. Just like Glassboro, the demographics of Old Bridge is slightly similar, except Old Bridge has a larger population than Glassboro, yet Glassboro has a higher crime rate than Old Bridge. It may seem that the absence of a huge college institution such as Rowan University in Old Bridge can be a key to the low crime rates in Old Bridge. What if the absence of a huge institution such as colleges, and so on is not the reason for Old Bridge’s low crime statistics, rather it is the characters of the mass population of its habitat that make a huge difference. Old Bridge as we know has one of the largest high schools in the State of New Jersey, way bigger than Glassboro high, and might be three-eight the size of Rowan University. In 2016 four of Old Bridge district Schools earned National School of Character, which puts Old Bridge in top 10 National district of Character in the state of New Jersey. Sizes do not matter when it comes to the fact that we have a city with high burglary rates when nationwide, burglary rates are steadily dropping. Take a look at the stats from Glassboro’s neighboring community, Williamstown; just like Old Bridge, it has no huge institutions present, and it has lower crime rates than Glassboro.

Have we looked into the other factors in the crime report? It is as if burglary is the only crime in the report. Ultimately burglary is not the reason why crime rates are sky high in Glassboro because, in reality, it is people without character in Glassboro that are driving crime rates up in the city of Glassboro. The national statistics for burglary occurrences are on a steady decline, but Glassboro, on the other hand, is receiving the opposite stats for this same crime. Security and preventative measure are adopted into our society regularly. You can believe all these innovative, and improved technologies are made available for everyone including people living in Glassboro. We can see that their problem is not a technological one, but one of character. It is safe to assume that the people living there need to be vetted, maybe stricter policies should be imposed on Rowan University. Also, more police officers patrolling the neighborhood would scare people who are on the verge of committing a crime. Take a look at Old Bridge, it has numerous police officers patrolling the streets of Old bridge daily, and I must say it seems to be working, hence the low crime rate. Also, we may believe that Glassboro is or isn’t a crime infested city, well think about the tribulation they have to deal with, with these obnoxious young adults running wild in the streets of Glassboro. Cases including assaults and harassment are generally high in areas closest to Rowan University.



Courtland, J. Mass shootings in the U.S.: When, where they occurred in 2018. ABC 15 ARIZONA. . Accessed 29 October 2018.

Crime in the United States. U.S Department of Justice. FBI. CJISD. . Accessed 29 October 2018.

Old Bridge Township Public Schools. . Accessed 31 October 2018.

2016 Crime Statistics Released. . Accessed 29 October 2018



Rebuttal – WaywardSundial

Small Amounts are Still Relevant

Using dispersants to clean pollution that resides in the ocean has direct consequences that harms life living in it, as well as outside of it. Unintentional harm from several techniques cleaning the seas can hinder or even kill unsuspecting marine life, especially from said dispersants. Regardless of the method of cleaning, harm will still be added, and in the case of dispersants being used to make the ocean appear cleaner, it actually is making more harm happen.

When pollution is being cleaned, one could argue that the amount of waste added as well as the damage dealt doesn’t compare to the amount of pollution that is being cleaned, as more good is being done than harm. Although that is true, many lives within the ocean will be harmed in potentially more severe ways. With the example of oil nets that clean up oil spills or emissions from aquatic vehicles, although there exists chances of animals being harmed, a good quantity of pollutants is being taken out of the environment. While this is mostly positive, the few lives in question would be snuffed out due to these efforts. It would be unfair as well as cruel to dismiss the possibility of loss of life, no matter if the loss in question is a fish or bird.

Dispersants are chemicals in which they are poured on oil spills, “dispersing” the pollution so that it appears to be clean, however there very well may be more harm than benefits with this method. With a notable quote from ( “While it would be nice to believe that dispersants rid the ocean of oil forever, the truth of the matter is that dispersants do not reduce the amount of oil entering the environment. Instead, they literally just push the problem (a combination of oil AND chemicals) underwater where we can’t see them …” and  “ Not only does it appear that our methods of cleaning up oil spills are ineffective, but the chemicals used in dispersants are also damaging marine life. Dispersants wreak havoc in ocean environments, and have proven to be harmful to many marine organisms.” These quotes show the dangers and effects of a single type of “rescue” people use to clean up oil spills.These dispersants spread the oil to eventually settle on the seabed, where it causes arguably more harm than it did on the surface. From being in the same environment as these harmful chemicals and toxins, marine life become not only tainted but also hindered by these toxins, passing the harmful effects to human were they caught and ingested. The effects of a product of humans seeking to help the ocean and those who benefit and live within it inadvertently negatively impacts the beings who are dedicated to it.

Dispersants deployed on oil spills near coral reefs may be more harmful to them than the oil itself. Done by an organization publishing their research on “ACS Publications”, a group of scientists and oceanographers revealed that dispersants were more harmful to coral than crude oil. “The dispersed oil and the dispersants were significantly more toxic than crude oil WSFs.” alongside a series of tests, this was the conclusion they discovered. Perhaps a good analogy to this overall topic would be for one to metaphorically look tat the sky of a polluted city. Although there is a blue sky and everything seems ok, it isn’t possible to see pollution in the sky with the naked eye. This goes for dispersants; although oil spills appear to be gone, they are really just dissipated throughout the water setting up the possibility to cause more harm. Again, the opposition to my overall thesis is that more good may be done than harm in the overall scheme of cleaning ocean pollution with the use of dispersants.

Perhaps the biggest case for refuting my claim is that when dispersants are used on oil spills, the oil that was initally harming animals are nowhere to be seen, completely dissipated throughout the water. Explained by “Marine Life Article” talking about how dispersants work, the types of them, as well as how “beneficial” they are, it completely neglects to talk about how disastrous they really are for marine life and the ocean in general. This claim is completely untrue, as although the oil spill appears clean it actually was just broken down, spreading throughout the ocean in small globules which not only spread the maladies of the pollution ever further, it also is more easier for wildlife in the ocean to consume it and become effected negatively by it. Furthered by my point about how ocean pollution can harm humans, this can be related to the use of dispersants as humans who are unlucky enough to eat marine life that have become contaminated through eating the globules caused by the dispersants will inevitably gain health problems, all leading back to the dispersants them self. This is very much the opposite to what is wanted when trying to save and preserve the ocean. Although it may appear good for an organization in the media to be associated with “cleaning the ocean”, there is virtually no benefit to this method other than the waters appearing cleaner. In actuality the waters are being polluted even more than if the oil were to just sit on the surface.


Casual – Ivonid12

Here’s what I have so far

Hey professor I could really use some help with this.

Since I’m researching the relationship between the value of a dominant defensive player versus the value of a great quarterback, I think the cause and effect relationship is crucial to my thesis. We THINK the quarterback is easily the most important and best player on the field at all times, since he is the person who touches the ball the most. But actually, it’s a great DEFENSIVE PLAYER, that can elevate the greatness of a team, and create opportunities for both the quarterback and defense.

Another thing I want to talk about about is how easy offense is to come by in the NFL so why aren’t great defenses more valued in the game today? Most analysts and the media always give credit to the quarterback or offense, but the defense is just as responsible. The goal to win the game is to score more points than the other team, however, it is just as important to stop the other team from scoring.

I guess one of the biggest problems I have is explaining what I want, but to make it understandable to the reader. Football is one of, if not the most in depth sports in the world, so making my argument understandable can be challenging.  What I may know or believe about football may not be  understandable to who is reading.