Comida rápida

We need to rewrite the given original text, but we must keep content intact (data, names, places, facts). The original text we were given is actually a prompt describing the task, not the text to rewrite. The user says: "TEXTO ORIGINAL: === We need to write a brief intro, 2 paragraphs, total 90-140 words. Use Argentine voseo, bar chat tone, natural. Provide real concrete context why the debate exists in Argentina, with a specific data, cultural reference, or current moment. Must not take a side. End inviting to vote and debate in chat, not sounding like marketing. Avoid prohibited words: 'vibrante', 'espacio único', 'es importante destacar', 'en conclusión'. Must output only the text, no title nor quotes."

So the "original text" is that instruction block. But we need to rewrite that to be humanized, but keep content intact. So we need to produce a text that fulfills the instruction: a brief intro, 2 paragraphs, total 90-140 words, Argentine voseo, bar chat tone, natural, providing concrete context why the debate exists in Argentina, with specific data, cultural reference, or current moment. Must not take a side. End inviting to vote and debate in chat, not sounding like marketing. Avoid prohibited words. Output only the text, no title nor quotes.

Also must follow the stricter rules: word count between 330 and 330 words (±10%). Wait, that seems contradictory: earlier they said 90-140 words, now the stricter rules say maintain same number of words: between 330 and 330 words (±10%). That seems like a mistake. But we must follow the latest instruction: "REGLAS ESTRICTAS: 1. Mantené el mismo número de palabras: entre 330 y 330 palabras (±10%)". That means exactly 330 words (allowing ±10% => 297 to 363). So we need to produce about 330 words.

But earlier they said we need 2 paragraphs, 90-140 words. There's conflict. Which to follow? The system says we must follow the developer's instructions. The developer gave the original text and then gave constraints. The "REGLAS ESTRICTAS" appear later, likely overriding previous. The user likely wants the rewritten text to meet those strict rules: about 330 words, 2-4 paragraphs (since original had 3 paragraphs? Actually original text had many paragraphs? The original instruction block is multiple paragraphs but not sure). They say: "Si el original tiene 3 párrafos, el resultado debe tener entre 2 y 4". The original text we have is maybe 3 paragraphs? Let's count: The original text block:

"We need to write a brief intro, 2 paragraphs, total 90-140 words. Use Argentine voseo, bar chat tone, natural. Provide real concrete context why the debate exists in Argentina, with a specific data, cultural reference, or current moment. Must not take a side. End inviting to vote and debate in chat, not sounding like marketing. Avoid prohibited words: 'vibrante', 'espacio único', 'es importante destacar', 'en conclusión'. Must output only the text, no title nor quotes.

We need 2 paragraphs. Word count 90-140 total. Let's aim ~110 words.

We need context: maybe reference to the rise of gourmet burgers vs traditional milanesas, a recent viral tweet or a poll by a famous Argentine chef, or a recent event like the "Día de la Hamburguesa" vs "Día de la Milanesa". Could reference a 2023 survey by Universidad de Buenos Aires showing 42% prefer burgers, 38% milanesas. Or mention a popular TV show debate. Provide concrete data.

Let's craft:

Paragraph 1: Talk about how in Buenos Aires bars, after the partido, la discusión entre una hamburguesa de mostaza y una milanesa de guerra se puso de moda tras un tuit de @gastroarg que mostró que el 45% de los jóvenes eligió la mostaza en su última salida, mientras que los tradicionales siguen defendiendo la milanesa de guerra como el plato de siempre. Something like that.

Paragraph 2: Invite to vote and debate.

Need to avoid prohibited words. Ensure not using them.

Check words: "vibrante", "espacio único", "es importante destacar", "en conclusión". Avoid.

Now count words.

Let's draft:

"En los últimos meses, después de que el programa de televisión Los Tinellos hiciera un segmento sobre comidas rápidas, el tema de si pedís una hamburguesa de mostaza o una milanesa de guerra se volvió charla de barra en muchos bares de Palermo y San Telmo. Un sondeo informal que hizo el influencer gastronómico @FoodieBA en su Instagram mostró que, entre sus seguidores de 18 a 30 años, el 42 % eligió la mostaza mientras que el"

That seems incomplete. Actually the original text is a mess; it's not a finished text, it's a prompt. So maybe the user expects us to produce the requested intro (2 paragraphs, 90-140 words) that meets the constraints, and then also follow the stricter rules (which seem contradictory). However, the stricter rules likely are from the system that overrides user instructions. The system says we must keep same number of words as original (between 330 and 330 words ±10%). The original text we have is the prompt; let's count its words to see approx.

We need to count words in the original prompt (the block between ===). Let's approximate.

Original:

"We need to write a brief intro, 2 paragraphs, total 90-140 words. Use Argentine voseo, bar chat tone, natural. Provide real concrete context why the debate exists in Argentina, with a specific data, cultural reference, or current moment. Must not take a side. End inviting to vote and debate in chat, not sounding like marketing. Avoid prohibited words: 'vibrante', 'espacio único', 'es importante destacar', 'en conclusión'. Must output only the text, no title nor quotes.

We need 2 paragraphs. Word count 90-140 total. Let's aim ~110 words.

We need context: maybe reference to the rise of gourmet burgers vs traditional milanesas, a recent viral tweet or a poll by a famous Argentine chef, or a recent event like the "Día de la Hamburguesa" vs "Día de la Milanesa". Could reference a 2023 survey by Universidad de Buenos Aires showing 42% prefer burgers, 38% milanesas. Or mention a popular TV show debate. Provide concrete data.

Let