Argumentative Writting Prompt

There are some things that you can’t do, and there are some things that you aren’t allowed to do. The New York City Board of Health exceeded its regulatory authority by adopting the “Sugary Drinks Portion cap Rule”. “...The New York City Board of Health, in adopting

As you may know, I represent Mr. Marc Donatelli in any and all actions that he may have against XXXXXX for that entity’s efforts (or lack thereof) regarding its investigation of threats and harassment directed at Mr. Donatelli by Ms. Patience Rhoades, a known prostitute, and her cohorts. For several months, Mr. Donatelli has been harassed and threatened by friends and family of Ms. Rhoades after she turned to Mr. Donatelli for help, but left inappropriately. This began in Lewisville, Texas. My client has asked me to inform you that he has sent packets of evidence to each of the agencies depicted below. In doing so, he sincerely hopes to put his dispute with Ms. Rhoades to rest.

The government has been taking more and more control over what we have been consuming. They have too many worries going on in America to try to judge us on how we eat. The government shouldn’t have any involvement in how we eat and what we need to do to limit obesity in America.

“New York City’s Board of Health today passed a rule banning super-sized drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.” (Doc A). Individuals in the United States are overweight because they do not know how to limit themselves. If the government were to control one of the main reasons people are obese, then several people would not be overweight because the government would take care of the problem. Banning sugary drinks over 16-ounces would help people lower their sugar intake, which would help people stay in excellent health. Although numerous amounts of people believe they should be able to make their own decisions, the government should be able to control what Americans are consuming because of children, health, and the future.

Choice. It is one of the basic human rights everyone should have. However, sometimes the ability to make your own choice is hindered. When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a law to ban large-sized sugary drinks, the city was splintered. Some people believed it was the right thing to do while others disagreed. Limiting the amount of soda a person can purchase is not a good idea, despite its benefits. The regulation itself has a multitude of problems, such as how there are many contradictions, how involved the government is, and how the ban doesn’t really improve health.

The highly debatable and argued over ‘soda ban’ has been taking over the world and grabbed the media’s attention. But why? Well, many think the ban is about soda, but really, it isn’t all about soda. Truthfully, it is about the world thinking about the decisions they make. But, the ban does restrict all drinks ran by city that are above 16oz or have 50% or more of milk and fruit juice. However the soda ban may have some positive effects, ultimately the ban is a bad idea. Due to the contradiction it brings, the fact there is only one person making the decisions, and the other ways people can spend money.

In life some feel the need to prove something to others. That they are better, stronger, or even more intelligent. Whatever the case may be people will go through extreme measures to prove themselves. But who do we really need to prove anything to? Is it our parents? Friends? Enemies? Or is it even ourselves? Chris McCandless, deceased adventurer from “Into the Wild”, underwent many obstacles that seems highly ridiculous. Certain physical and mental challenges that could have prevented, Chris decided to do defying the chance of death or severe injury. But the real misunderstanding is who was Chris proving his manhood too?

Mental stability is an important part of living a normal life, but identifying mental illnesses can be a difficult task. One way to identify these illnesses is the Rorschach test, a series of ink blots that supposedly detects these illnesses. However, there is controversy around validity of the Rorschach. In “What’s in an Ink Blot? Some Say Not Much” by Erica Goode, Goode writes about this controversy, where it stemmed from, and where the scientific community stands on it. The Rorschach test should not be used to diagnose mental illness because the test subject has the ability to alter the results, it takes a lot of time to interpret and learn how to interpret, and there are many doctors that are not

That is true, however this argument is weak because there are in fact bigger problems than soda being a health issue. Itś your choice on whether you drink soda or not. It won't do much damage unless it becomes a very consistent thing. Though soda is bad, we have much bigger problems killing people. For example, cigarettes or smoking in general. It affects people who are not even committing the action, but people who are near it. The soda ban should not official because of those bigger problems. Stated in ¨Soda´s a Problem But…¨ on page 288, ¨There are times when the government has to step in on obviously dangerous situations- especially those, such as smoking, that affect the people other than the person whose behavior would be curbed-...¨ (Klein, 289) Furthermore, Cigarettes affect more than one person. The Soda Ban is something we shouldn't be worried about if we have another problem possibly killing someone faster and quickly. Despite the mentions of it reducing health issues, the ban still does not deserve to be put in place since there are other severe problems that should be discussed

The bustling society we live in makes our lives fast-paced and abundant in people we meet. We are at the height of our traveling capabilities, which has only further advanced our society and the way we go about our daily lives. However, some suggest that our traveling capabilities have actually done more harm than good. Perry Patetic argues that the mobility of our society has harmed our close relationships, drawing us apart from our loved ones. Patetic states, “The advantages to living in such a highly mobile society are thus outweighed by the disadvantages.” Patetic claims that mobility has deteriorated our close relationships. This claim, however, is in many regards absurd. The vastly mobile society we live in gives us better opportunity

As described by Samantha Gross in the Washington times article “Pro, con arguments on proposed NY sugary drink ban” she objectively states

Did you know that 60% of adults and one in four children in Australia are overweight or obese, making us one of the most overweight developed nations? Almost half of our population comsumes a sugary drink each day. I believe that it is about time we do something about this. With sugary drinks and weight related health problems closely linked, leading experts from the cancer Council, diabities Australia and the Heart foundation say the sugar tax would be a great solution.

The press is known to explode with news everyday, informing the people on different topics that are happening worldwide. The newest revelation is on the soda ban in New York. Websites and pages are plastered with information and headlines announcing how “Mayor Bloomberg is overreaching with N.Y.C. large soda ban” or “Banning the Big Gulp Ban”. Reporters are scrambling to join the bandwagon of criticizing or praising this mayor’s audacious decision. There are many factors that influence opinions on the matter, but one of the most popular reasons is because of the high numbers of people that are obese and overweight.

Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which include soft drinks, fruit drinks, ice tea, energy and vitamin water drinks across the globe. Regular consumption of sugary sweetened beverages have been associated with weight gain, obesity and diabetes. The role of sugary sweetened beverages in the development of related chronic metabole diseases such as metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, has not been quantitatively reviewed .