Rebuttals for the principle argument. 1. Your argument is wrong because you are focusing on only the smoker's rights not the nonsmoker's. Non-smokers have rights not to smell cigarette smoke. You should compromise both people's rights and set details about smoking areas enlargement in consideration of non-smoker's opinion. 2. Even if your argument is correct, it is not important that smokers could have a bad influence on people when they can't smoke. Because adults can control their smoking and feeling unless they are addicted, that situation usually doesn't happen. Therefore, you should not emphasize the impact of people being banned from smoking and you must focus on how non-smokers feel when they smell an unwished scent and how non-smokers' health be affected by smokers. Because it is a more practical issue than bad atmosphere made by smokers banned from smoking. We should not ban smoking in campus because smoking in campus is a convenient way for people to smoke. Smoking areas are in campus so that people can smoke easily. Smoking areas close to their working place is very important. Because it helps smokers spend time efficiently. If a campus doesn't have smoke areas, people should go out from the campus to smoke or find a hidden place in the campus every time. It would be very stressful and time-consuming work. If smoking has no direct relevance to degradation of ability, the campus should have smoking areas each building to smokers efficiency not ban smoking. Smokers should not be banned from smoking in campus because people have the right to smoke. And it means that there should be smoking areas in campus for securing their rights. Campus is the place for work and study where people have to stay in on weekdays. So, if smokers are banned from smoking in campus, it must be the violation of their rights. Every campus has smoking areas restricted by lines or smoking booths. For example, there are 12 smoking areas in Chung-Ang University. But those are too small to smoke. There are a lot of complaints about this already. In this situation, if smoking is banned in campus, smokers' stress would be higher and affect their study and research, and it could affect the class atmosphere as well. So enlarging smoking areas in campus is needed not banning smoking in campus which can harm smokers' rights. We’d like to propose The payday lending industry has received widespread attention and intense scrutiny in recent years. The annual percentage rate associated with such loans commonly reaches triple digits. About 4% of Americans use payday loans every year. And Most of the borrowers are moderate to low income individuals. Furthermore, lots of them And the 72 percent of borrowers have a household income of less than $40,000 a year We ? I? Our? My? Payday loan : APR : Necessities : Anything that is needed for someone’s basic living. Argument 1. Protect consumer’s economic status from payday loan business. 2. Government responsibility 3. Payday loans can be replaced by other ways. The reason the poor use payday loan - mainly because of low credit. Solo(social-loan) What if a borrower says ‘rip his or her belly’? https://faq.solofunds.com/what-happens-if-a-borrower-doesn-t-repay-on-timeSJP2qKeF 논리 1 : payday loan industry 에 돈이 몰리는 것보다. 그들이 일상 경제활동 하는 것이 더 국가에 이득일 것이다. 논리 2 : Rebut 1. High APR makes people trapped in a cycle of debt Rebut - payday loan is for short term lending Business owners take high risk, and their actual yearly profit is about 10%. Economists said it is justified So it can not be said that payday loans have disproportionately high APR. 2. Regulation is ineffective Rebut - All payday loan businesses disappear in the states where the loan APR is capped at 36% interest rate. Because they cannot make any profit. 3. Encourages individuals to breed more social capital. Rebut - alternative source not sure that they are willing to lend their money, not allowed to receive payday advance, not meet the condition to get help from EHP. For that kind of risk, payday loans exist. Argument 1. People are benefited from payday loan Payday businesses do what the general banks can’t do. Borrowers understand the terms of the loan, but their economic conditions make these loans unavoidable. There is often no choice, no options to be weighed, or a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out. According to , after payday loans are banned, consumers bounced more checks and 2. Government obligations 2-1.Protect the public’s choice 2-2. Payday loan business is also a business that makes profits and pays taxes. 3. Drive demand towards illegal forms of borrowing via organized crime. Government actively prevent Gentrification PM Argument 1. Government responsibility to protect local resident 2. Government responsibility to protect local culture 3. What the future looks like when we actively prevent gentrification LO Argument 1. Government responsibility to not interfere with natural economic processes The economy can grow by developing undeveloped places. The economy grows by people who take risk of reforming or changing. The people who don’t want to change or be changed are set back. Through natural economic processes, the overall economy grows. The government’s responsibility is to facilitate or help the economy to grow not interfere with it. Overall economy (which will result in an increase of national competitiveness not) 2. Political, cultural, and social benefits of gentrification for local neighborhoods 3. Gentrification benefits racial minorities.
