Example 1
The biggest refutation to my hypothesis of grass fields being safer than turf fields is of course that grass fields are more dangerous. This seems obvious to a lot of people; grass fields are choppy and unkempt. Well, this isn’t the case for NFL stadiums. They literally hire people to keep the field in great playing conditions.
Author’s Position: In the NFL, grass fields are safer than artificial turf.
Your Worthy Opponent Says: Grass fields are choppy and unkempt.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Unmask the False Analogy that NFL fields are like high school fields.
Explanation: Common knowledge is incorrect. People’s concerns about grass turf, the Author can suggest, are derived from their experience of amateur, collegiate, or high school fields of play. Those concerns don’t apply to playing surfaces in the NFL, which are pristine.
Additional Notes: We can indicate with signal phrases that we’re making a rebuttal argument without directly signaling “the biggest refutation to my hypothesis.”
- I’ll use blue to highlight signal phrases that indicate there are other points of view.
- I’ll use red for accommodations that show respect for the divergent viewpoint.
- And I’ll use green to indicate where the rebuttal begins.
Revised:
Critics of natural grass playing surfaces like to cite the woeful condition of their neighborhood high school field to illustrate the danger to athletes’ ankles and knees. Granted, those fields suffer a lot of abuse, and playing on them after several home games in a row is hazardous. It’s even true that many school districts have replaced their grass fields with artificial turf because they can’t afford the high cost of maintaining perfect grass. But the NFL, for the sake of reducing player injuries, is willing and able to make that continuing investment.
Example 2
Having a college degree can give a graduate the opportunity to receive higher paying salaries and stable incomes. A college degree can also give a student the potential to receive higher raises. Not every student who receives a degree gets a stable income. Student A attended college, received a degree, and found a career that had a stable salary. Student C attended college, received a degree, and found a job that offered salaries that do not pay enough to pay off student’s expenses. The push to try to make students attend college is leaving many students optioning out the “build your own business” idea, which is the idea many of the billionaires in today’s society had.
Author’s Position: Some, but not all, college degrees are good financial investments.
Your Worthy Opponent Says: On average, college degrees pay off.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Unmask the False Conclusion that students should be encouraged by “average outcomes.”
Explanation: Readers should be unable to escape the comparison between Student A and Student C, two graduates in different disciplines whose outcomes should not be “averaged.”
Additional Notes: The more appropriate comparison is between Graduates, not Students. Debt becomes a burden after graduation, when it needs to be repaid.
- I’ll use blue to highlight signal phrases that indicate there are other points of view.
- I’ll use red for accommodations that show respect for the divergent viewpoint.
- And I’ll use green to indicate where the rebuttal begins.
Defenders of expensive college degrees like to point out that “college graduates, on average, earn $750,000 more than non-graduates in their lifetimes.” And it is true that certain graduates in high-paying fields do thrive. But it is also true that when Bill Gates pulls up a stool at his local bar, he raises the “average income” of all the patrons by tens of millions of dollars without actually benefiting any of his drinking buddies. So, the fact that Graduate A, whose MBA launches her directly into a well compensated financial services job, can easily repay her student loans, does not benefit Graduate C, whose new degree in the philosophy of philology lands him no job at all, even though their degrees were equally expensive.
Example 3
It is sometimes hard to believe that a device used to alert you of a fire is actually causing them. There have been some reported fires that have started due to a detector, which have not been researched to see what actually caused the fire. An article titled “Fire services on alert after smoke detector is blamed for causing two blazes,” published by Daily Mail, provides two cases in the United Kingdom where smoke detectors caught fire inside houses. Fire investigators on the case say they are on the side of caution because of these incidents and are taking the situation very seriously. These detectors were installed by fire services for a fire prevention safety campaign.
Author’s Position: Not only do smoke detectors not always alert residents to home fires, they sometimes actually cause fires.
Your Worthy Opponent Says: Smoke detectors are “slam dunk” beneficial devices for home safety.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Paint the divergent opinion into a corner.
Explanation: In itself, an anecdote about a faulty smoke detector wouldn’t be persuasive, but failure of the Ideal Smoke Detector probably will be.
Additional Notes: This is the third argument in a row for which the Rebuttal Position is represented by the fairly weak Straw Man of “common knowledge.” The better paper would find a legitimate, credentialed spokesperson for the Rebuttal Position and then obliterate that point of view. I found someone to take the fall.
- I’ll use blue to highlight signal phrases that indicate there are other points of view.
- I’ll use red for accommodations that show respect for the divergent viewpoint.
- And I’ll use green to indicate where the rebuttal begins.
No one would deny the value of smoke detectors for preventing tragic loss of life from home fires. But they are not the “slam dunk” always-beneficial devices safety professionals commonly declare them to be. Battery-operated models work only when they’re charged. Hard-wired models operate only if they’re properly installed. Short-circuits in wired models can actually spark fires. And homeowners are notorious for choosing bad locations for detectors, or installing them poorly, or failing to maintain them.
But the clearest indication that detectors are not foolproof occurred in 2011 in Humberside, England. British fire professionals had selected the Fire Angel ST 620 for its “ground-breaking” smoke detection technology and its 10-year power pack. Local firefighters installed more than half a million of these smoke alarms for free in homes throughout the UK in a massive public safety initiative. Despite their high quality and the reliable installations, these devices, when they sounded their low-battery warning, were uninstalled by homeowners and then spontaneously caught fire. Chris Blacksell, Humberside’s Director of Safety, was forced to admit: “We have contacted every fire service in the country to find out if there have been any other incidents involving detectors [and] have decided to not fit that type of detector until our investigation is complete.”
Example 4
The video also claims that nothing short of an enthusiastic “Yes!” qualifies as consent. Anything along the lines of “okay” or “sure” would therefore not be valid. But again, has every person that has answered in such a half-hearted manner felt as though they were raped?
Author’s Position: The definition of rape as sex without consent is a bar so low that no one can engage in sex without fear of committing a crime.
Your Worthy Opponent Says: Consent, even between loving partners, is rarely unambiguous, and rarely continuous, and even when it is, the sex partner cannot know it, so most sex takes place without known consent, and that is rape by the current too-inclusive definition.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Reduce the definition of consent to absurdity.
“No means no” was a functioning definition of rape that served us well for decades. Any sex act that proceeded following a “no” was rape. The sex partner who heard the “no” was obliged to suspend intimacy or proceed with a crime. Such terms were manageable. Today, the sex partner is at a loss to know whether a crime is being committed or not, because to proceed without knowing that continuous unambiguous consent is being granted is to risk being accused of rape. Sex without consent can occur without a “no” being uttered. Rape can take place any time a “yes” is not being heard. It’s no longer the obligation of the less interested partner to say “Stop this now.” Instead, it’s the obligation of the more interested partner to hear, without interruption, a constant chorus of “Yes! Oh God, yes!”
Example 5
So how does that apply to people whose skin color is white or lighter but are not even white? they are Hispanic, African American, or any other ethnicity. This is an ongoing issue because people who are multiracial have been told that they have the privilege and that they are treated better because they are not fully one of the ethnicity. But how is anyone supposed to know what privilege is if they all believe it is only based on a lighter skin color.
Author’s Position: Multiracial Americans are uniquely oppressed because they are stigmatized by at least two races.
Your Worthy Opponent Says: Multiracial Americans, are advantaged over black or Latino Americans because they enjoy the privileges of being white.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Expose the duplicity of the argument.
Explanation: Failure to acknowledge discrimination in others is a fatal flaw in those who argue their own discrimination.
- I’ll use blue to highlight signal phrases that indicate there are other points of view.
- I’ll use red for accommodations that show respect for the divergent viewpoint.
- And I’ll use green to indicate where the rebuttal begins.
Surely no one wants to be treated badly, but that doesn’t prevent minorities from competing for the distinction of being “the most oppressed.” Black Americans rank their suffering against that of Latino Americans, who assert their relative oppression by the majority culture against the deprivation status of Asian or Arabic immigrants. Each group has reason to believe that members of other groups enjoy privileges denied to others. Even aggrieved majority white Americans assert that they suffer from reverse discrimination. At the heart of all such assertions is the underlying claim that members of other races “can’t understand what it’s like” to live in another’s skin. The obvious irony of the argument that multiracial individuals are privileged by their part-white ethnicity is that it’s made by people who “can’t understand what it’s like” to live at the juncture between two ethnic cultures.
In-Class Exercise 1
Background: American public schools are funded primarily by local property taxes on the homes and businesses in their own neighborhoods.
Not only do these children endure difficult lives at home, for low-income areas often lack resources, they are being sent to school to endure even more difficulty with developing and learning. The middle class seems to be dissipating as the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider and wider. Funding has been cut a tremendous amount and in some states, pre-K education has been cut entirely and some schools had to deny some kids from attending school due to population. The states have not hesitated to cut funding, yet they haven’t made any true effort to gain money to support the schools. Most of the children from poor areas come to school without having eaten breakfast, or having just encountered secondhand smoke, abuse, or neglect, dressed in thin, poor clothing and torn shoes. The bottom line is that their lives are difficult enough. Why should they suffer even more in the place they are supposed to succeed? In the place they have a right to succeed? Everybody talks about the gap, but nobody does anything to fix the gap, or even attempt to do so. Children from these areas are dropping out of high school before they graduate. There were about 3 million teens in 2009 that did not have a high school diploma or were not enrolled in school at all. The drop out rate for low-income students is five times greater than the drop out rates of high-income schools: 7.4%. High school dropouts are not able to apply for 90% of the world’s jobs. This means that children from low-income areas are denied a job that pays enough to support them before they even get a chance to get an interview for the job; they are turned down on the spot, and it is all because of the lack of funding in low-income communities.
What is the Author’s Position? Keep it short.
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say? State it positively like any other reasonable claim.
The Rhetorical Strategy: What would be the best strategy to refute the claim?
Explanation: Explain if needed.
In-Class Exercise 2
Background: Adderall is prescribed millions of times to treat hyperactivity, attention deficit, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors, particularly in youth.
This is where the problem starts, depending on the drug to make you perform, rather than relying on what you are normally equipped with to perform. The purpose for the pill is being put into effect, but what happens if the pill is not there? An article titled, “Adderall Addiction and Abuse” posted by the Addiction center states, “The brain of an addicted person is dependent on Adderall to stimulate alertness and productivity. Without Adderall, addicted people often feel tired and mentally foggy. These are symptoms of Adderall withdrawal, a strong sign of an addiction.” Someone who relies on this artificial performance, after receiving the skills they have obtained through the drug, can act like a bubble pop when the drug is taken away. It becomes a way of life. You take that pill everyday because the doctor prescribed it, and now you are reliant on that pill to succeed. Take coffee as an example, I’m sure many people insist that coffee is what gets them through the day. Without this coffee, they would be useless.
What is the Author’s Position? Keep it short.
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say? State it positively like any other reasonable claim.
The Rhetorical Strategy: What would be the best strategy to refute the claim?
Dev
Joe Gramigna
alexmoran17
alivewit55
americangods01
anonymous123
Anonymous
azntaco
belldere
bigcounrty609
bigfoot9
bj112295
blueee04
breadpatrol99
brxttyb
calamariii
cfalover
charlieclover
cherries267
chickendinner
chickennugget246
chickennugget444
clevelandbrown03
cocochanel715
comatosefox
crossanlogan
cswilliams15
dancingueen
disneylover2002
doglover846
dontquoteme187
douglasadams525
dt2018
faded26
fatjoe000
friendoftacos
frogs02
fromcasablanca
fulcrum66
g00dsoup
giants19
gingerbreadman27
girlno3
gobirds115
goodmusician440
gracchusbabeuf
hiralp365
ifurreadingthisits2l8
ilovedunkinoverstarbucks
ilovenas
imaspookyghost
inspireangels
JalenHurts4Mvp
jasrielle2
jcirrs
jonnyb25
eagles21
kilotoon
kingofcamp
krackintheneck
Philip Ebenezer
Lily4Pres
littlecow24
ljkvng34
lokiofasgard24
luckyleprechaun1
marinebio18
mellowtacos
miliwawa
minutemen14
mossmacabre
music0392
mymomshouldhavenamedmegrace
ndb1996
neferpitou626
nugget114
oatmealvibes
ohearnj8
palal24
peachesxo
philsfan1133
pinkheart84
pinkmonkey32
pitandthependulum22
queenrandom04
RowanAnnouncer
Rowan27
rowanluver29
rowanstudent6
saltysurfer322
saycheese03
Senpai Pio
sinatraman17
sixfortyfive645
sortableelms
spaghettitacosforthesoul
strawberryfields4
suedejackson
sunflower0311
sunshinegirl457
Shazammm
tarheel1999
teddysdoggydaddy
thatwonguyy
themildewmuncher7
Public Display Name
thirdlady226
tlap23
tmjj4345
toastedflatbread22
tpaz1
tristanb50
twofoursixohtwo
tyblicky2001
venom2929
vicarij0
wakeup5am
Water
wildcuttlefish
wizzard201
xchuki
Lunaduna
zeek
ziggy026
zinny11
zipemup1
zoeyzoey0210
zzbrd2822
Counterintuitive Spring 2023 
The author’s position is that low-income schools should have more government support.
The opponent says that schools should be funded by the neighborhood they are in.
The best rhetorical strategy would be pointing out the hypocrisy of neighborhoods with no money having no money.
The author’s position is that Adderal prescription creates addiction.
The opponent says the side effects they’re describing as withdrawal are the reason that people get prescribed Adderal in the first place.
The best rhetorical strategy would be misdirection and the manipulation of statistics.
LikeLike
Just like what Queenrandom04 said in her comment, the author’s position is that low-income schools should have more government support and {to add on to what they said} more support from school counselors and educators to help students achieve a higher education. The opponent says that schools should be funded by their own communities. Not the government. The best rhetorical strategy would be to point out the communities that have no money. How are they supposed to fund for schooling when they have no money?
And just like what Queenrandom04 said, the author’s position is that administering drugs in a medical setting can lead to addiction. The opponent says that the withdrawal symptoms are the reason why addicts are getting hooked. The best rhetorical strategy would be to manipulate the statistics.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that schools in low-income areas should have more support from the government.
The worthy opponent says that the government as no obligation to these schools, and that they should be funded by the community they are in just like every other public school.
The best strategy to refute this would be to point out that the government was the overall creator of these low-income communities, and in not allowing the children of these places to gain a beneficial or adequate education or succeed, they are bound to repeat the same cycle as their parents (not be able to get gainful employment due to lack of education, stay in low-income community, have children, not be able to provide proper tax pater dollars to support their children’s education).
LikeLike
Exercise 1: Position- The authors position is that school funding being dependent on the tax rates of homes and businesses in the local area is systemically oppressive to those of a lower-income background.
Opponent: Where is the money that they are funded with supposed to come from? Every Americans quality of life depends on how much taxes they pay, which in turn are used to pay for things that the people need. If you do not pay as much taxes as other areas, why should you get the same benefits? Does this not become harmful to those in higher tax-brackets?
Strategy: Expose the author for generalizing all low-income individuals as having not eaten breakfast, having just experienced second-hand smoke, and not having access to clean clothes consistently. The truth is that not all low-income children live like this, and to propose so would be a hasty generalization.
LikeLike
Author’s position: Low-income schools should have more financial support to fix the gap between high school dropouts in those schools.
Opponent’s position: Funding for schools should come from the neighborhood they’re in.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Unmask the claim that higher-income neighborhoods have more of a “right” to better school funding because of where they live.
Explanation: By not giving children an equitable chance at school due to funding or where they live, it’s hurting those children as a whole by causing them to drop out and have a hard time getting a job since they do not have a high school diploma.
LikeLike
The author’s argument is that the government should fund public education
The opponent’s argument is that education should continue to be funded by taxes by their communities
The author should explain the differences between low income and higher income school districts and the outcomes of students who attend in these differing districts in order to explain why the government should fund public education so that all students have equal opportunity to succeed.
LikeLike
-The author really believes that the low incomes schools should have more government support due to the fact that the schools are getting harder to learn in due to the difficult nature of the environment around them. The opponent really believes that the communities should be the ones funding the schools. I think the best rhetorical strategy is to point out the corrupt governments and point out that the communities have no money to even be able to fund the schools.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that the government needs to appropriate more funding to support the children of impoverished families at school.
The “worthy” opponent decries further government spending as inappropriate and unwise, likely advancing some tired argument about personal responsibility, holding bad parents accountable, relying on private charity instead, or really anything but investing money and resources into the population.
Highlight how individual actions, while important, cannot overcome a systemic crisis. This is not one or two kids, its multitudes of children who are deprived of the resources they need to grow up healthy and access more of the job market as adults. /
The author believes adderall is overprescribed.
The worthy opponent disagrees and cites how the medication is helpful for those who need it. Restrictions on prescriptions, they argue, mean people who need it wont get it.
The author can refute the argument by either arguing this isnt true, or arguing that the harm is far less. It may take longer for someone who needs it to get it, but that is better than the overprescription crisis.
LikeLike
In Class Exercise 1:
What is the Author’s Position?
Underfunding in low-income schools perpetuates the areas lack of resources
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say?
It should be up to the parents to be harder on their kids so they graduate
What would be the best strategy to refute the claim?
Argue that it’s unrealistic for all parents in low-income neighborhoods to both support their family and be there for them as much as they need to be.
In Class Exercise 2:
What is the Author’s Position?
Drug addictions cause more issues than the problems they seek to solve, as withdrawals leave the user more impaired than they were before
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say?
Having consistent access to the drug and using it responsibly will not lead to a withdrawal problem
What’s the Best Strategy to Refute the Claim?
Name the dangers of becoming addicted to adderall, include a percentage of people who become addicted
LikeLike
The author’s position is that public schools aren’t getting enough funding making it hard for people of low income to struggle to get an education or get a job due to the lack of experience and guidance.
The opposing side states that to combat the issue of low funding, they should provide the community with the funding it needs
The rhetorical strategy would be discussing the area of low income and how much they are affected by the lack of resources
The author initiates with the statement that low-income areas such as public places are at low due to a lack of government help and due to the lack of support they are faced with challenges of getting an education or a job, the rebuttal aspect is the communities themselves aren’t doing enough to combat these issues and they should start providing help for one another instead of waiting.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that government should give and provide more resources for low-income schools to improve them. The opponent of the author’s position might have to say that school funding should stay within the local community and not the government. A rhetoric strategy for going against the opposing position would be pointing out that the local community is already poor if the school is low-income which would answer for the lack of resources provided.
The author’s position is that an Adderall prescription can lead to an addiction of the drug. An opposing side may say that the symptoms of feeling foggy and tired do not relate to Adderall withdraw. The author can respond with a rhetoric strategy by changing the statistics.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that there needs to be more funding from the state and federal governments for the lower-class education system.
The rebuttal is that the cause of this education problem is the “income gap”, and that the federal government shall not get directly involved in aiding underfunded communities.
Refute it by making claims about the lack of resources these local governments have, and research how much money, or lack thereof, these towns/cities have available to give out as aid.
The author’s position is that Adderall is a bad drug that forms a dependence in those who take it regularly and that without the drug these people are unable to efficiently perform tasks.
The rebuttal to this would be that since Adderall enhances your focus and activates better brain function how could it be bad? The Adderall withdrawal problem can simply be solved by taking more Adderall.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that students who receive a lower income should have more government support for their education.
The opponent says that schools should be receiving money from the community they are in.
The best rhetorical strategy would be if the author explained what kind of benefits each side would have. If the neighborhood received the money or if it didn’t.
LikeLike
Example 1:
The author’s position is that students from low-income towns are at a disadvantage because their schools receive less funding and provide less opportunities. The opponent says that schools need to be funded by their own towns. The best strategy to refute the claim would be to talk about how this is not a small problem it is a big problem and have your readers understand that a town that already has low income cannot afford to put any more money into their schools.
Example 2:
The author’s position is that people who take Adderall can cause addiction making the problem worse when the person does not have their medicine. The opponent says that Adderall helps people stay alert and productive. The best strategy to refute the claim would be to show evidence of how the addiction to the medicine hurts the person more than what they are taking Adderall for.
LikeLike
Example 1:
The author’s position is that there should be more resources provided by the government for low-income schools.
The opponent’s argument is that funding for schools should stay within each town/district, not the government.
The best strategy to refute this claim would be to make the audience aware that not all residents of communities have money to be able to properly provide for their children’s education.
LikeLike
Example 1:
Position: The author’s position is that there must be more funding to lower class schools from the government.
Opponents argument: School funding should stay within the local community or state to fund their schools rather than government funding
Rhetorical strategy: Further analyze the large gap between the upper and lower class
Example 2:
Position: Adderall is overprescribed and causes serious addiction
Opponent’s argument: Those who truly need it experience almost withdrawal like symptoms without it
Rhetorical strategy: Examine those who are addicted’s lifestyle vs those who truly need it to function in every daylife.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that children who are struggling outside of school are also facing difficulties developing and learning in school.
The opponent argues that the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider no one wants to fix it
A rhetorical strategy: People want to fix it but everyone has a different definition of what it fair.
LikeLike
The author’s position is that the government need to help fund low-income schools
The opponent says that the community/neighborhood that the school is in should fund the schools
The best strategy to refute their claim is to explain that it is hypocritical to say that low-income communities should fund their school, if they are low-income it is going to be difficult to fund their school so they should get help from the government. Also point out that not all low-income children live the same way like not eating breakfast and encountering second-hand smoke
LikeLike
The authors position: The government should be providing educational help for children with low income.
The worthy opponent says: The schools should be getting funds from the town or community it’s in.
The rhetorical strategy: The best way to refute the claim would be to prove that the government wouldn’t help funding and the community of the school is poor or known to be lower class so how would they help fund the school.
LikeLike
Class Task 1
The author’s position: Low income families should have more financial support and resources for school from the government
Worthy opponent says: The local community should provide the funding and support of school instead of the government
The rhetorical strategy: The best strategy would be to elaborate on how little money families gain to just barely get by to provide their families so how they suppose to provide for the school when they barely can provide for their families. Also stating the lack of resources that given out to help these families as well.
Class Task 2
The author’s position: Adderall that are prescribed to patients are becoming an addiction for individuals who take them
Worth opponent says: Adderall are helpful for individuals who have ADHD to stimulate productivity and focus
The rhetorical strategy: The best strategy would be to explain the effect Adderall has on an individual after long period of time and the effect it has on the patients if they decided to withdraw from Adderall
LikeLike
Exercise 1:
The author’s position is to greatly increase the funding for schools in low income communities in order to provide underprivileged children in those areas opportunities that are comparable to children in the more wealthy areas. The worthy opponent would say that there should be no increase in school funding because the source of the problem is not in the school systems, but lies within the communities and family home life where these underprivileged children are raised. The focus should be on establishing more community centers and youth activities to provide positive growth opportunities for the children. In addition, the family structure needs to be supported through resources in the neighborhood, such as youth groups and community clubs. The best strategy to refute the claim would be to go to the basis of the argument, meaning to switch your main focus from the school system to the homes and communities of these underprivileged children.
Exercise 2:
The author’s position is that Adderall, which is a drug, is prescribed to people who need it, and then once they start taking it everyday, they become reliant on the drug and cannot function without it, which forms an addiction later on in life. So, it would be difficult for these individuals to one day stop taking the medication due to its highly addictive nature. The worthy opponent says that Adderall is effective and a much needed drug that helps kids function and stay alert, as well as making them focus, so that they can get through their everyday activities. The best strategy to refute the claim would be to provide statistics and evidence to show how effective the drug actually is and how it can improve people’s ability to focus in their everyday life.
LikeLike
Example 1:
What is the Author’s Position? Schools in low-income areas should have more financial support from the government.
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say? Schools need to be funded by their own towns, and it is not as much as the governments problem as it is their own.
The Rhetorical Strategy: Personally, I think the best way to rebuttal this argument would be to research more on the income of families in that specific area. This would help show the audience and their opponents that some families are struggling to support themselves let alone help fund the school their children are attending.
Example 2:
What is the Author’s Position? Adderall is at first prescribed to help those who need an extra push to be able to perform the best they can. But that drug can become easily addictive when you realize its benefits.
What Does the Worthy Opponent Say? The opponent says that Adderall is a needed drug for those who need it to function better and stay alert in their day-to-day activities.
The Rhetorical Strategy: The best way to refute the claim would be to show how this drug that was at first meant to help the one who was prescribed it, can end up hurting them because the drug and its benefits can become highly addictive once those who take it see the improvements it has in their day to day.
LikeLike