Cedar Hill Prep School

Assertion: There are many Middle Eastern Countries that aren't lifting a finger.

Reasoning: Why should these refugees go to Europe when there are perfectly safe, Middle Eastern, Muslim countries that are much wealthier than Europe, like Saudi Arabia.

Reasoning: These Middle Eastern and African refugees will fell completely alienated in Europe. Much worse, this feeling could lead to major problems. In places like Saudi Arabia, people have the same culture and government and these refugees will feel right at home.

Evidence: According to the Washington Post, the six gulf countries, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain, have done NOTHING for these refugees. They have offered zero re-settlements whatsoever.

Evidence: These countries aren't just some innocent bystanders. The Washington Post says and I quote: "To varying degrees, elements within Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the U.A.E. and Kuwait have invested in the Syrian conflict, playing a conspicuous role in funding and arming a constellation of rebel and Islamist factions fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."

Evidence: According to the Washington Post, some of these nations have the highest budgets and standards of living in the Middle East, as well as a lengthy history of welcoming other Arab refugees and turning them into citizens.

Evidence: As I said before, feeling alienated could lead to serious problems. According to thefreerepublic.com(along with many other sources), Syrian refugees protested being fed Italian food IN ITALY. Also, they slashed the car tires of the care workers that brought them this food "just to get their point across".

(If you think this is too much evidence I was kind of trying to fill this point to the brim with evidence)

Hello. My name is Chloe Gocher and I strongly believe that the federal government HAS failed in rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. I would like to argue this for the following reasons:

1. There are former residents of the Tremé neighborhood being forced out of their homes.

2. There are people that are still not allowed in their homes

3. ?

Now I would like to provide my reasons for asserting so.

1. ?

2. The federal government is not doing anything for housing reconstruction

3. ?

Now I would like to give some evidence for my reasons.

1. According to ourfuture.com, the federal government have allowed developers to buys up the land and develop it. Having done so, the developers have made these new properties way to expensive for people to buy it.

2. There are 2.5 billion dollars that remain untouched that were supposed to be used for reconstruction, according to ourfuture.com

3. ?

Assertion: Rounding costs us more.

Reasoning: By getting rid of the penny, everything will be rounded to the nearest nickel

Evidence: Since everything will have to be rounded to the nearest nickel, hawkers will probably raise the prices in their favor. That may not seem like a lot of money at the time, but as costs add up over all of your spendings, that could amount to a whole lot more than a couple of pennies.

Assertion: Nickels are more costly

Reasoning: It costs more to make the nickel than the penny and the loss on the nickel is even greater than on the penny

Evidence: It costs 7.7 cents to make the nickel. That is 2.7 cents over its face value. With the penny, it costs 2 cents to make. That is only one cent over its face value. The loss is greater with the nickel than the penny.

A hawker is a seller of goods

Assertion: We have no practical use for the penny anymore

Reasoning: In earlier times, we had a use for it. Now we don't

Evidence: In the earlier 1900's, you could go to a candy shop and buy a piece of candy (or more!) for a penny. Also, you could go to a vending machine and use pennies in it. Now that does not happen. Where have you recently seen a vending machine that accepted pennies? Where have you recently seen a piece of bubble gum or licorice for a penny? The truth is, you haven't. So why keep the penny if you can't use it?

Assertion: Costs are higher than worth

Reasoning: It costs the mint more to make a penny than the tiny coin's value in currency

Evidence: The cost of the metal (zinc and copper) alone for the necessary amount in a penny costs about two cents

Assertion: No foreseeable economic breakdown

Reasoning: The economy won't break down just because we get rid of the penny

Evidence: Canada got rid of their penny in 2012 and their economy hasn't broken down for the loss of the one-cent coin

Assertion: If we ban cigarettes, there will be a rise in crime surrounding it.

Reasoning: In the 1920's, the prohibition of alcohol led to the rise in organized crime.

Evidence: Cigarettes are addictive. So is alcohol. If people are addicted to something, they will sometimes do terrible and illegal things to get their hands on it.

Assertion: Cigarettes could be sold on the black market

Reason: Higher cigarette taxes and federal taxes will make black market cigarette sellers more profitable.

Evidence: Higher cigarette taxes and federal taxes will make black market cigarette sellers more profitable. This will lead to more illegal smuggling of cigarettes.

Assertion: Tobacco is deadly. It is one of the deadliest things in the history of civilization.

Reasoning: It kills about 6,000,000 people every year

Note: Think about that. There are about 7 billion people in the world. If smoking kills about 6 million a year, that is about 3/3500 people a year. That may not seem like much, but multiply that by about a century. That's a lot of people dead. If we don't ban smoking, that number may grow.

Evidence: In the U.S., smoking is the cause of 480,000 deaths a year. In the world, it causes 6 million deaths a year.

Assertion: Secondhand smoke

Reasoning: It's not just the smoker who's in danger, it's the people around him.

Evidence: When someone smokes around other people, those people are affected. Approximately 2,500,000 people have died from secondhand smoke worldwide since 1964.

Evidence: Pregnant women who smoke give their developing child more of a chance for a serious disease. Also, this puts stress on the poor baby's developing lungs and heart and makes it harder for it to breathe. This leads to a loss of needed nourishment or at least makes it harder to obtain that.

Note: If we endanger our babies and children, we endanger our future. There's just no way around it. We eventually, will die and they will take our places and do things just as great, if not greater. If we endanger them, we leave our future and theirs to hang in the balance.

Assertion: Smoking costs non-smokers, too.

Reasoning: It's not just the smokers who have to pay for their cigarettes.

Evidence: The total economic cost of smoking is around $300 billion a year

Evidence: Some of that includes nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults.