The opposing side of the view has really good points to support college football as opposed to banning. The only reasons given for banning college football is that it takes much time of a student and less monetary benefit to a student. Miller concedes most of the point to the opposition, whereby he points out that America should ban harmful things like sugars, alcohol, and tobacco. He supports his claims by stating that football gives college students scholarships; it nurtures talents and promoting diversity in American schools. Banning cigars, alcohol, reality shows, and fast foods will make America healthy and much safer.
Friends with Benefits
The argument about friendship first brings about the essence of defining what friendship is. For instance, the author states from research that the people one call friends that they connect on Facebook could not be knowing each other from the onset but got to connect because they were friends of friends. The main argument here is that real life physical friends and facebook friends both contribute positively to one’s life. Physical friends, however, can mislead one because of their habits like weight gain and smoking. Notably, the author further states that Facebook is good for timid people who would find it more better to engage and chat friends on Facebook than physical.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I support the first argument on banning of football as the best illustrated even though the author did not provide sufficient evidence as to the case of friends with benefits. The argument started by first stating the opinion/ viewpoint of each side. The author states both the benefits of banning football and the opposing side’s view. Dailey in the argument about friends with benefits takes one side and states the opposing view at the end. There are perhaps wrong reasons for calling people on facebook friends which the argument does not highlight.
