Datasets:

inpars
/

fewshot-examples

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 1.06M rows

query_id stringlengths 1 41	doc_id stringlengths 1 109	query stringlengths 2 5.5k	document stringlengths 0 122k
8	67e96403-2019-04-18T17:53:21Z-00004-000	Should abortion be legal?	Abortion should remain legal in the United States Resolution: Abortion should remain legal in the United States No semantics No intentional fallacies No ad hom Dropped arguments are considered concessions Shared Burden of proof(with a wee bit more on him but not much) I challenge you ULTIMATESKEPTIC! :) I hope we have a good discussion. Affirmative posts first round, but only concludes last round. Sources can be provided in comments if each debater wishes! :)
48	6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00000-000	Should the voting age be lowered?	Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sht my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sht out of some people.
2	497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00004-000	Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?	Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. To begin I will make statements based on fact with reliable sources to back the claims made. I will use the next round to refute my opponent's information. Let's start out with how E-cigarettes are dangerous and finish with how Marijuana is not. I will use the fourth round to add further points. I would also prefer if my opponent used round 5 to recap and please not use new arguments. E-cigarettes were introduced into the United States in 2007 after being created by a company is china. They are similar to regular cigarettes in terms of appearance. The e-cigarette uses a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine which is then transformed into vapor and inhaled and exhaled by the user. Health experts agree, they may pose a serious threat to the the user of the device and the public. I will list and explain various ways that this is true. Health experts also agree they need to be tested and researched more to be deemed safe or unsafe to our health. Possibly the worst of the e-cigarette concept is that they are not subject to tobacco laws because they contain to tobacco. Meaning that they can be purchased with identification proof and can be purchased easily, particularly on the Internet. Meaning youngsters who have acquired enough knowledge to know that e-cigarettes are purchasable online might order one for themselves and keep it. These devices also come in Flavors: Chocolate, caramel, strawberry even bubblegum! Celebrities also use them which may attract children also. A couple examples are Johnny Depp and David Letterman. Katherine Heitgl even used one on a talk show and explained the to the audience! You are probably inquiring what is wrong with something like this? Well, I will get to that in a moment. The reason e-cigarettes are popular among 'former smokers' is because they contain nicotine. An addictive drug found in all tobacco cigarettes. This addictive drug is placed in products like e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes so people do become addicted and remain buying the specified product. This product may even contain MORE nicotine than a tobacco cigarette. Yes, more. Also manufacturers continue to deny testing from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Ushering us towards a more dreadful conclusion. Countries have realized the health risks and have banned them from the country entirely and/or made them lllegal. Examples are: Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico. The FDA also claims that second vapor can cause some serious health hazards. Individuals have claimed that the vapor burns their eyes, nose and throat. Especially those with health problems and the elderly. These E-cigarettes and also cause damage to the wind-pipe. Scientists from Athens, Greece noticed the problem also. A test was done on 32 individuals that volunteered to do so, 8 of which have never smoked before. They were given E-cigarettes and asked to use them for 10 minutes. These are the Results. -Non-Smokers -raised airway resistance by 206% to 182% Which experts quoted was a significant increase. -Current and regular smokers -suffered a 220% to 176% increase in airway resistance. -Asthma patients -found no increase. Now I will explain the health benefits behind Marijuana. I will begin with a very truthful quote by The Economist. "If Marijuana were unknown, it's discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would hail it's potential for treating everything form pain to cancer and marvel in rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. before I begin I would like my opponent and the voters to watch this video it is very brief and contains a lot of information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mlfvklejuw Now with that in mind I will begin my statement on how marijuana has health benefits. Due to the fact that marijuana does not contain nicotine smokers of the product tend to smoke less because of the lack of the addictive drug. Marijuana also contains THC, a bronchial dilator, meaning it opens up the wind-pipe and lungs excreting dirt and other harmful membranes trapped inside the body. There has been absolutely no cancer resulting from the use of marijuana. Not even a death associated with the herb. There are also health benefits in the cannabis plant (basically marijuana). Like how earlier represented in the video link I posted that it can reduce the risk of cancer. The Journal of the American Medical association tested 5,000 individuals between ages 18-30 years old that used marijuana regularly."Had no discernible lung impairment in lung activity from non-smokers." There was also a test conducted at Harvard! It revealed the active ingredient in marijuana cute tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability for cancer to spread. Sources: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smokingcessation/10-fact-about-e-cigarettes.htm patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ txconnectme.wordpress.com/2012/04/26marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows/
50	42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00112-000	Should everyone get a universal basic income?	Progressive taxation helps combat extreme poverty This is because the lowest tax band will apply to earnings beneath an initial threshold. Therefore, the less one earns, the higher percentage of one's pay is not taxable. The cost of basic survival needs is by definition a larger proportion of a lower earner's income and therefore a certain "block" at the bottom of each income may be tax free altogether to allow for these needs. This protection for the poorest is important, because most countries also operate customs tariffs and sales taxes, which tend to hit the poor more than the rich in terms of the proportion of their income going in indirect taxation; progressive direct taxation redresses the balance.
48	44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00004-000	Should the voting age be lowered?	Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Introduction Hello, Con! I am excited to debate this issue for many reasons: my primary one, however, is because I have not debated in a long time and this looks like a good debate to get myself back in gear. It is an interesting idea, and you make some pretty interesting points. However, I feel I can counter them, and provide a few good reasons of my own for why the voting age should be lowers, or, at least, why eighteen year olds are no more responsible or mature than a sixteen or seventeen year old. I know that this will fulfill my burden of proof, but it will at least, hopefully, show why your arguments are not quite as good as you may believe them to be, in my opinion. That being said, let's start with rebuttals! Rebuttal 1: Maturity My primary issues with this point are that you have not provided statistical support for your claim, and you are begging the question. You are basing your reasoning behind why you believe eighteen year olds are more mature than sixteen year olds on things such as military age. However, this conclusion is under the assumption that eighteen year olds are mature enough to join the military, or that sixteen year olds are not mature enough to. The primary reason why the age to join the military is eighteen and not sixteen is because most sixteen year olds are in high school. This is not a problem of maturity, but a problem of circumstance. Of course, I can also turn this argument around and say that, because sixteen year olds are mature enough to own and drive a car, they should be allowed to vote. I am sure you disagree with this reasoning: but why? It is the same reasoning you are using with why they should not; I'm only turning it on its head. In fact, you made this point for me! "If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country." I would hardly say that the amount of teenagers paying taxes is low: "At any given time approximately 45% of 16-17 year olds will be working and up to 80% of all teens will have a job before they graduate from high school. " (1) If you have a job, even as a teenager, you pay taxes. That does not even take into account the fact that teens overall spent an estimated 9.7 billion in sales taxes alone! (2) Our brain is not fully developed until we hit thirty. Indeed. Are you arguing that we should increase the voting system, then, to 30? Rebuttal 2: Experience Why would you not trust a sixteen year old with your life? What about a sixteen year old makes them more untrustworthy than an eighteen year old? Furthermore, sixteen year olds cannot run for office. This is true. However, neither can an eighteen year old. Can you guess what the youngest age you can be to run for any political office in the United States of America? 25. (3) Are you arguing that we should raise the age to 25? But they are not fully developed themselves; so, 30? Yes, most 16 or 17 year olds have not had a long-term job or have run their own lives. But neither will an 18 year old: in fact, most people will not have this responsibility until they leave college, which is usually around 22 (given that post people finish college with a bachelor's degree). This is not even mentioning the fact that, whoever is on the ballot, adults will vote for at the same percentage as children. If children can vote bad, than adults can vote bad as well. There is no objectively wrong vote, though; one's opinion is their own. Your basic argument regarding the whole untrustworthy children when it comes to making decisions is one that can be applied to any adult. After all, I wouldn't trust just any adult with my life. Sixteen year olds would have the same options as adults. Rebuttal 3: Responsibility That logic is just silly. You must prove that a sixteen year old cannot fulfill the role of a juryman. The primary reason they are not is, once again, a problem of circumstance: being on jury requires that you miss school. Furthermore, juryman are decided based on voting registrars; you have to vote to be a part of a jury! So, this begs the question: 16 or 17 year olds cannot vote because they cannot be juryman because they cannot vote. This is circular logic. Point 1: No taxation without representation It is what the founding fathers fought for: teenagers pay quite a bit in taxes, as I have already pointed out in rebuttal one. As such, they deserve the same level of representation as others who pay taxes. Indeed, they may not pay the same amount in taxes as everybody else, but circumstances have always been a factor in what taxes are given to what people. After all, 47% of people do not pay income tax, because of age or socioeconomic standing (most are elderly or poor, or both). Point 2: Stability Sixteen and seventeen are good times to vote, stability-wise. Eighteen is one of the worst times, in fact. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are stationary; they attend school and have a regular social life. They have no real major changes that affect their lives. However, eighteen year olds are generally transitioning to colleges, attempting to find stable employment, and sometimes trying to find a place to live. This is also a time of economic instability: after all, college is significantly more expensive than anything you'll need to pay for in high school, and those who do not go to college still need to find a way to sustain themselves outside of their parent's homes. They are still trying to settle down. Point 3: Voter Turnout Voter turnout will increase if you lower the voting age. Studies such as Merrill's study of five states that had implemented a program called Kids Voting USA, which gives children information on voting and politics, and five states that did not implement the program. He found that parent turnout increased three percent, due to parents being inspired to vote due to their kid's enthusiasm to voting. The number was as high as nine percent in some states! (4) It would be logical, therefore, that voter turnout would increase in both children and adults if the voting age was lowered. Point 4: Unique point of view Voters will, obviously, vote based on their circumstances in life. As teenagers have a different point of view as, say, a mentally senile seventy-three year old man (who has just as much right to vote as a mentally stable thirty year old), they will provide a unique point of view to the election. Along with that, their views will be heard and considered by politicians when they make political decisions that affect things such as education and raising or lowing minimum wage, as just a few examples. Conclusion I eagerly await my opinion's response. This was a lot of fun! Best of luck to my opponent; his opinions are interesting, but I am curious of his actual position: is he in favor of keeping the minimum age of voting at eighteen? Or is he in favor of increasing the voting age? Based on what he said, it seems like the latter. If that is the case, this should be a very interesting debate indeed. Sources:(1) www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/teen-techguide1.pdf (WARNING: This is a PDF file. You'll need some form of reader to access it.)(2) http://www.youthrights.org...; second point(3)http://www.earlyamerica.com...(4)http://www.uvm.edu...
22	8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00009-000	Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?	A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.
31	2cfef4b7-2019-04-18T18:42:38Z-00001-000	Is obesity a disease?	Christianity is a Disease 1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent? My opponent said: The laws of the Universe are set in stone. It is by these laws that the Universe stays on course. Mathematics is man-made, the question has no point. - This does not answer the question. For the big bang theory to be true, all of the universe's laws must have come into existence instantly. In fact, gravity must have existed before the big bang. If it didn't, how could "all the matter in the universe be compressed into a dot..."? Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change (Wikipedia). The actual force of mathematics is not man-made. On Monday can I take two apples and two oranges and wind up with four fruits, but on Tuesday take two apples and two oranges and have five fruits? No, mathematics is concrete and immaterial. 2. How could everything start from literally nothing? My opponent said: This is something we do not yet know. How did God come into existence? This is my point. If no one knows, why is the entire theory taught as a fact? Where did God come from? I could give you a long answer on how God is the first cause and therefore is self-existent, but when it comes down to it, I really don't know. But, this is the difference between you and I; I admit my belief is a religion. 3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true? My opponent said: This is another thing that we simply have no answer for. That doesn't mean its not correct, it just means we don't know. Then why is this entire evolution theory taught as fact? This is a major problem. 4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought? My opponent said: We evolved these traits of love and thought to encourage survival. We love others, and that makes us protect them. We think so we can solve problems. You give a reason but no cause. Evolution is the changes over time in genetics. We know that things such as thought are not genetic; our supposed ancestors don't think like we do. They are designed to survive while we are designed to strive for truth. How can something immaterial be evolved when evolution is strictly materialistic? 5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others? My opponent said: We evolved this way. You're questions really show how dumb you are. If this were the wild, higher IQ people would survive longer because they can think better. You atheists always mock Christians for saying "God did it", yet you do the exact same thing. "We evolved this way". The burden of proof is on you. You claim that what you say is science, yet this is your best argument. Have you observed this? 6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven? My opponent said: There are no absolutes. We cannot really be sure of anything. Are you absolutely sure there are absolutes? How do you know you can't know anything for sure? 7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong? My opponent said: You do what feels right. What if I want to kill you? Is what Hitler did alright? It felt right to him. 8. Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why? My opponent said: Yes murder is wrong. And yes it is wrong for everyone. Why? Because no one has the right to kill. So there are no absolutes, and there are no real morals, yet it is absolutely immoral to kill? 9. If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth? My opponent said: Truth is something that accords to reality. How did truth come to exist? It is immaterial after all. It isn't just some chemical.
20	f0de1dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:58Z-00000-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning The first, and possibly most important, thing that must be brought to light is Spero's assumption that morning drinkers will abide by their own rules of etiquette. In this world, morning drinkers will be kind, courteous, and only drink a beer (maybe two). This argument, like most of Spero's, has within its structure absolutely no reasons to believe it. Spero contends that I must show why morning prohibition is good. This is absolutely not the case. Remember, the proposition is: "It should not be considered rude to drink in the morning." All I have to show is that it is rude to drink in the morning, not that morning prohibition is the best avenue possible. By the end of this constructive (in combination with the other that I have posted), I believe that it will be more than evident that drinking in the morning is most definitely rude. Spero's second argument is that I must show that morning drinking will offend another person. My first response is that morning drinking is considered rude for a reason and that reason is not simply to spite Spero. Among other things, the smell of alcohol can be infinitely offensive. Also, remember that Spero provides absolutely no reason to believe that individuals who drink in the morning won't be doing so to fulfill any sort of craving (this ties in with the new rules of etiquette argument articulated above). Spero's third response is that distinctions of time are "arbitrary and silly". My first response is that if they are so silly, then there should be no good reason that Spero and countless others around the world abide by them. Somehow in this mindset, Spero finds it easy to claim that I must show why my arguments are specific to the mornings. My first response is that Spero's arguments aren't even unique to morning drinking. My second response is that my arguments actually provide reasons and analysis as to why drinking the morning is a bad thing. Finally, it is obvious not only that I have lived up to Spero's standard, but that he/she absolutely has not. Next, Spero move on to his arguments that I refuted. The first of these is that morning prohibition is something that is done without reason. First, I would like to point out that morning prohibition isn't what should be being debated, as it strays from the original resolution. Second, as explained above, there are multiple reasons why morning prohibition is in place. Additionally, I never conceded that morning prohibition is silly. What I stated was that I hoped that it (meaning the debate) would be fun. Even if the topic is unsavory, the debate (no matter how skewed it gets) is still an educational and worthwhile experience. Spero's next response is that alcohol's good taste and the fact that it loosens tensions are two excellent reasons as to why drinking is a good thing. This point I will most definitely concede. The problem is that these are two things that happen no matter what time of day a person drinks. Much like the majority of his arguments, Spero fails to make this one specific to morning drinking. At this point, Spero, once again, provides no unique reason as to why drinking in the morning should not be considered rude. At the risk of sounding like a child, if I have to show why drinking in the morning is rude, he/she most certainly must show why it is not. The next few arguments are essentially the same, so to save time (and space) I'll group them and make one response. Of all of the reasons that Spero provides, he/she gives no unique explanation as to why morning drinking is unique and different from night drinking. Once again, there is no analysis provided that explains why the social ills that happen at night will not happen during the day (the only thing that Spero provides here is a little bit about drinking in Germany and Denmark; my response here is that these two places are most certainly not the US [which is where the debate takes place]). Spero's last argument in an attempt to show that morning prohibition makes alcohol infinitely more desirable. This is most definitely not the case. Remember, drinking in the morning is already considered rude. Despite what Spero is insinuating, there is absolutely no reasons given to suggest that alcohol has become any more popular since it was first considered rude. Finally, my arguments are hardly given any attention whatsoever. At the end, it becomes obvious that, once again, Spero has absolutely failed to show how his/her arguments are unique to morning drinking. Beyond that, he/she has also failed to prove any of his/her arguments. Finally, he/she has been unable to properly respond to any of the attacks that I have made.
1	799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000	Should teachers get tenure?	unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;\|88;{64;{54;\|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;\|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{71;{92;{63;\|25;私{83;{85;\|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;\|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;\|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;\|50;\|59;\|54;}31;
39	d952a77d-2019-04-18T15:21:40Z-00003-000	Should the federal minimum wage be increased?	Government Intervention Prolonged the Great Depression Special thanks to Josef_K for challenging me in this debate. Remember that we are debating that government intervention in the United States economy prolonged the Great Depression. My opponent has to argue that increased intervention by Hoover, FDR, and WW2 accelerated the recovery.C1: Herbert HooverWhen the Great Depression hit, Republican Herbert Hoover, did not hold to free market policies that his predecessors did. Hoover's plan to deal with the Great Depression was actually quite interventionist. Hoover interened in the relationship between labor and business by ordering large labor unions to not strike in exchange that businesses would not lower wages and actually raise them when they could. This policy went forward and was a disaster:"Hoover's wage ideas sounded good to some. And they were indeed the opposite of federal policies in the last downturn. But they did not really make sense: to force business to go on spending when it did not want to was to hurt business. And in some areas - wages, especially - the president's policy was dramatically counterproductive. As the crash continued, profits began to drop. Yet businesses could not adjust: if they wanted to be good citizens, they had to keep their pledge to Hoover and sustain employment and wages. The president was, essentially, requiring that companies take the hit in profits instead of employment." [1]Hoover also raised taxes on incomes and trade:"Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed the day after some hurdles were declared in Congress that made the Smoot-Hawley tariffs likely. This was a massive tax increase on international trade, quadrupling the tax to 60 percent on 3,200 imported goods. The economy, along with the stock market, started to go into free fall. Amazingly, Congress decided to double-down on what the money masters at the Fed were coing and threw in mammoth tax increases. In 1932, tax rates were increased across the board, with the top personal income tax rate jumping to 63 percent from 25 percent." [2]Increased government intervention, high tariffs, high taxes, as well as policy mismanagement by the Fed all contributed to a worsening crisis. Hoover lost the 1932 election and was replaced by Democrat FDR, but he hardly made a difference.C2: Franklin D. RooseveltFranklin Roosevelt, although campaigning that Hoover was spending too much, went on his own spending binge and launched greater intervention than Hoover. The New Deal had many parts to it. The most significant of his policies was the highly regulatory National Industrial Recovery Act:"The centerpiece of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. It created "codes" or cartels in more than 500 industries in order to limit competition. Businesses were told to cut output and maintain high prices and wages. Businessmen who cut prices were cajoled, fined, and sometimes arrested. Fortunately, NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935." [3]The NIRA was a massive disaster. Businessmen were very concerned about expanding as Woods explains:"Businessmen and investors, unsure of what the federal government would do next and what additional punitive members would be imposed on them, simply stopped investing.....long-term investment was particularly hard hit in the 1930s." [4]Higher controls on wages caused even less job growth:"Minimum-wage laws proved a stumbling block to efforts by blacks to secure jobs. These laws prevented employers from undercutting unions by offering lower wages to nonunion members. Since blacks faced exclusion from many of the powerful unions, they were in effect frozen out." [5] And further from Cole and Ohanian:"We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth." [6]Then there was the Agricultural Adustment Act, which was basically the NIRA for farming. The AAA required farmers to dump their surpluses in order to create inflation and keep prices up while getting heavy subsidies in exchange. However, the subsidies meant that now big farming businesses had a stronger advantage to small ones:"To larger farmers, the new AAA payments were welcome. Food and cash from another New Deal agency, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, reached many of the poorest farmers. Small-farm owners, however, found the AAA regimen challenging. And tenant farmers were stunned. Landowners had historically hired sharecroppers because they themselves made profits from their share of the crop that the tenants planted and harvested. That relationship had become more tenuous as crop prices came down, and there was less for landlord and tenant to share." [1]While millions of Americans were starving, farmers were cutting their surpluses in a very detrimental and despicable policy that helped consumers less and reduced competition:"Shortly after the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was passed, the Department of Agriculture released the findings of its study of the American diet during these difficult years......It found that America was not producing enough food to sustain its population at the minimum (subsistence) diet. It took a special kind of mind to conclude that the best approach to this disaster would be to make more food expensive." [4] What about the unemployment rate during this period? In this graph, I compiled together two countries on the same continent with similar economies that are closely tied together: the USA and Canada. What we see is that while Canada's recovery gets better and better the United States is largely stagnant:"During the Hoover years (1930 to 1933), American unemployment was, on average, 3.9 points higher than Canada's unemployment. Yet during the (peacetime) heyday of the New Deal from 1934 to 1941, U.S. unemployment, on average, was 5.9 points higher than Canada's." [7]The New Deal didn't help end the Great Depression, it prolonged it. Finally, I want to establish just how different the Great Depression could have been had Hoover decided to similar fiscal policies to that of Warren G. Harding in 1921. Economist Scott Sumner writes:"With the same monetary policy and the path of NGDP that actually occurred during the period after 1929, but the Harding-era laissez-faire attitude toward labor markets, the Great Depression would have ended around late 1935. That's a six year depression if we count both the contraction and recovery to near full employment. Using the same method, the actual Great Depression was almost 12 years long (with full recovery in late 1941), but the 1921 depression was only about 2 1/2 years long (say mid-1920 to late-1922)." [8]In 1921 taxes were lowered and the government barely intervened at all in the economy, sticking to a balanced budget rather than more Keynesian deficit spending conducted by Hoover and FDR.C3: World War 2 Typically people always say that World War 2 ended the Great Depression, but looking closer at evidence shows that it does not. If we look at GDP during World War 2, it might appear at first glance that it did lift the country out of the Great Depression, but there is a problem here that Robert P. Murphy writes:"When government massively expands its own spending - as happened from 1940 to 1945 - it boost official GDP, because government spending is one component of its official measure. The problem though is that extra million dollard in goods and services as determined by a Pentagon contract is not as productive as when consumers spend one million dollars on goods and services produced in the private sector." [7]Doug Casey adds:"An economy can't prosper when markets are being overruled by command-and-control rationing. During the war, companies found it easier and more profitable to produce for government than to produce for consumers. Even companies such as Eastman Kodak, the film and camera company, began manufacturing rifle scopes and hand grenades for the military. GM stopped making cars for civilians and made military vehicles instead. Tires, gasoline, shoes, beef, sugar, coffee and much else were rationed. The standard of living in the U.S. during the war collapsed; conditions for consumers were much worse than in the '30s. Remember that the best definition of a depression is: A period of time when most people's standard of living falls significantly." [9]If we look at private investment, what we see is that it actually got worse as the government massively inflated the market: Sources1. Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007. Print.2. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity; Mascot, 2012. Print.3. Edwards, Chris. "The Government and the Great Depression." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 1 Sept. 2005. Web. 4. Woods, Thomas E., Jr. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2004. Print. 5. Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." Mises.org. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Feb. 1995. Web. 6. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "How Government Prolonged the Depression." Online.WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal, 2 Feb. 2009. Web. 7. Murphy, Robert P. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2009. Print. 8. Sumner, Scott. "What (if Anything) Can We Learn from 1921?" Econlog. Library of Economics and Liberty, 05 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2015.9. Casey, Doug. "Escaping the Great Depression - and Extending the Greater Depression." CaseyResearch.com. The Casey Report, n.d. Web.
1	1a76ed9f-2019-04-18T16:07:27Z-00002-000	Should teachers get tenure?	High schools should add students to the teacher evaluation system. Before I begin, I made a minor mistake with my websites when. I sourced them in R2. I accidentally made it to where it simply took you to the home page. If you wish to see the exact page I looked at, here they are for R2: (1) http://njmonthly.com... (2) chrome://external-file/Adolescents'%20Expectations%20of%20Teachers.pdf -this one is being tricky for some reason. Put this in chrome or try this: I'm not sure why, but I can't get to it from safari http://www.cedu.niu.edu...'%20Expectations%20of%20Teachers.pdf (3) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org... (4) http://www2.ed.gov...(5) http://www.ed.gov...(6) http://files.eric.ed.gov...Now attacking my opponents case: "The Flaws With the Current System" -Essentially, I will also be building up my point, the current system is the most effective way to evaluate teachers, while I attack my opponents arguments on this topic so that I don't have to repeat myself later. 1) The first issue was the test scores. My opponent tried to prove that test scores have little worth when evaluating a teacher. She argued that they only give the tests for grants. While this is true, they play a major role in evaluating a teacher. The standardized tests show how much a student has learned. My opponent mistook my statement she quoted by thinking that I meant it doesn't involve the teacher. The tests completely rely on what the student has learned from the teacher. The teacher controls what he or she teaches and how well he or she teaches it, but the teacher cannot have actual physical control over the actual score. It is accurate because it shows what the teacher has been able to teach in the school. 2) The second issue is principal reviews. Here is a piece of evidence that sums up my point. "More recent research suggests that principal evaluations are most accurate at the top and bottom ends of the teacher performance range. Observations of teachers" classroom performance and standardized test scores measure different dimensions of teacher performance." Principal reviews can pick up anything that the standardized test scores leave out. This fills the gaps, thus making the system strong. There is argument over a teacher changing teaching once a principal walks in, but this is only part of principal reviews. A majority of it is based in teacher leadership meetings, seeing student achievement, seeing the depth of information by end-of-the-year tests (finals), other administrator reviews, and even student assessments (2). This keeps the sight for error broad so that nothing is missed while keeping it professional and using qualified personnel. This proves that the current system is in no need of extra variables that would cause inaccuracy in the future. "Accuracy of Student Evaluations." -I will build up my complete opposite point, A system with students added would not be accurate, in the process of attacking this point. 1) My opponents evidence form The Atlantic that shows that teachers with high ratings could fit 6 more months of learning than those with lower ratings is irrelevant. The school could have easily known this by the various methods I listed above in principal evaluations. For example, by seeing the finals, the administration could have easily come to this conclusion because the depth of information on it would significantly lower for the teachers with lower ratings. Having students evaluate the teachers in this situation was completely unnecessary......(about the students getting it right?).... 2) Addressing biases, there is no way to prove they don't exist because they do. This affects the rating................................ My opponent states that the two pieces of evidence make students qualified when in reality, it would only prove that they aren't not qualified. Just because they won't lie or call a teacher bad because of grades doesn't mean they are qualified to know the standards by which the teacher is held at the school. Therefore, they are not qualified by this argument even IF it were correct. Improves the School System -For this one, I will simply attack it. 1) Teachers that gain tenure get it because the tenure system is flawed itself and not a direct cause of the teacher evaluation system. It has become "a system that favors seniority and ignores merit sends a terrible signal to anyone thinking about teaching" (3). To prevent this, schools need to pay more attention to student achievement (3). Schools aren't giving tenure because of good teachers necessarily. 2)Saying "bad teachers" is a loose term that can be taken on many levels. There are no direct and specific qualifications for the word "bad." The evidence does not say anything about whether these so called "bad teachers" were new, experienced, well-educated themselves in their subject, etc. If it was proved that this large amount of teachers that weren't fired were inefficient and couldn't do their job, then I'd like to hear the argument. 2) The current system puts students first without giving them power that is not theirs. The whole basis of teacher evaluations is to make better students and provide a better education. Here is an analogy. Restaurants always put their customers first. This doesn't mean they get to decide what a good price is for the quality of food. The owners get to decide that and they will fail as a restaurant if they have badly priced food or just terrible quality food. If reasonable, serious people were able to decide as customers what the price of the food should be, it would inevitably be lower than its true quality and price. The customers know nothing of the restaurant world so they aren't qualified to do this. It is the same with students. They don't know enough about the standards of a teacher to put a "price" on their teaching. For all we know, they could have a brand new teacher that's working really hard but just hasn't figured it out yet. It is the responsibility of the owner, or administration, to set the standards and hold the chefs, or teachers, to that standard. Benefits the Student and Teacher. -This simply goes back to my two arguments: Students have many different ranges of what they expect in a teacher, and It is inevitable that students will expect something that the teacher will not meet.. I will support these two while attacking my opponent's argument. 1) It won't benefit the student. Satisfying the students isn't the primary focus of a school. It is unimportant. The gap that opponent speaks of is inevitable. Students don't 100% expect the same kind of teacher in his or her style of speaking teaching, control of the class, personality, or methods of teaching. There will always be a gap. Not reaching the expectations of the students isn't always a bad thing. For lack of specifics, we must rule in the great possibility that the expectations were only not met by slight differences and not necessarily completely drastic being the opposite of expectations. It is possible that the expectations were merely approached which isn't all of the sudden wrong. This also goes to my point of student expectations that cannot possibly be met. This must be considered also. 2) it won't benefit the teachers spoke of in this point. Students at any point in time can walk up to teacher and talk to them about this issue of teachers wanting to become better. If they truly do, I'm sure they won't mind that a student gives feedback. Some teachers might even ask on their own. Student evaluations would simply turn feedback from students talking to writing. It's easy either way, it does neither harm nor good. Thus, it is unnecessary. >>>>>To make things clear, I will show exactly how I defended my arguments and defend the ones I have not addressed in the attack on my opponents case: Students have many different ranges of what they expect in a teacher. see attack 1 on "Benefits the students and teachers" My opponent attacked my argument by bringing up the format of the evaluation and trying to show that it would make it more accurate. In the study, the evidence I provided, it was a survey of what they wanted in a hypothetical teacher. They had different preferences. This would obviously reflect on the evaluation. I know for a fact at my school, some teachers are despised by students while others find them amazing. There is too much of a contrast to give an accurate evaluation. There need to be qualifications for students to have the right standard to evaluate the teachers. see attack 2 on "Flaws with the current system" and attack 2 on "Improves the school system" It is inevitable that the students will expect something the teacher will not meet. see attack 1 on "Benefits the students and teachers." The current system is the most effective way to evaluate teachers. see attack 1 and 2 on "Flaws with the current system." and basically everything else* For the many arguments above, students should NOT be added to the teacher evaluation system. Sources: (1) http://www.cecr.ed.gov... (2) http://www.newrepublic.com... (3) http://www.education.com...
18	d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000	Should churches remain tax-exempt?	Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut
40	1d058f16-2019-04-18T16:49:33Z-00003-000	Should the death penalty be allowed?	The death permanently needs to be completely removed. One of the main things that people overlook when it comes to the death penalty is the issue of fear. The fact that the death penalty exists is fear, when a person is considering a crime they worry about being put on death row. Thus the death penalty is in all reality saving lives because it stops people from committing these crimes. If we where to simply remove the death penalty the crime rates would go up because criminals would not be afraid of the death penalty. Although I agree with my opponent that taking a life is wrong, it is a necessity because if a criminal is not executed it could result in the deaths of many more. I understand that taking a life is wrong, but when that person has taken the lives of others he has given up his right to life because as a society we can not allow these criminals the ability to get back on the street. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. My opponent stated that the death penalty will not make the offender learn anything, however the point of the death penalty is not for him to learn, it is to keep the masses safe. Often many mob bosses and gang leaders have networks within prison that allows them to communicate with the mob and carry out crime. Because of this even behind bars these people are a threat to society, when a prison can't keep the criminal from carrying out crime then there is no other option. The point of the death penalty is not to teach them a lesson, the point is to teach future criminals a lesson. When a person wants to kill someone they will think twice when they think about the death penalty. Thus executing someone on death row is doing two things at once, stopping the person from continuing crime and stopping future criminals from partaking in it. It is not an easy decision, but it is a necessary decision.
23	64a697e7-2019-04-18T15:36:13Z-00003-000	Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?	assisted suicide should be legalized I am your opponent and I will be against your stance; I will be for the legalization of assisted suicide, or euthanasia, and I will refute all of your arguments. Opponent is obviously Catholic of Christian, and lacks sources, evidence, and logic/reasoning. I will find this debate an easy one to accomplish. Audience, please vote for pro - we can already tell who is going to win in this debate, so there is almost no point in debating. But, for the sake of opponent, I will debate with you and refute all of your arguments effectively. It appears that, based on your writing style and content, you lack knowledge, skill, and experience in making an effective debate with such poor writing structure. First off, you make many spelling and grammar mistakes that even a child in middle school would not make. You state that it is absurd for three reasons - what? Is this a debate or elementary language class? You don't have to write that, and while that is the format of an essay, the style of your writing is too simple and inferior to even qualify for a debate. Also, your arguments are weak and base them on reasoning and logic used by those ignorant of science and law. You lack any evidence or sources to back up your claims, and the ideas for each argument is too weak. I am sorry, but if you continue to debate like this, I will forfeit this debate as a result of your inferior debating skills compared to even a beginner in debating. As for your arguments, I will still be refuting them; whether or not you understand them (due to your obvious lack of debating skill), will not be an excuse for countering my arguments. You claim that only God has the right to determine if you should die. Yet opponent does not think first if opponent is atheist, agnostic, spiritual, or even of other religions. As stated in my other debate, rights can be taken away, are superficial, and are completely made up by intelligent life forms. Clearly God is not an intelligent life form as He is a divine creator; clearly, He is natural and therefore cannot make rights as they are man-made and can be taken away. Besides that, you also claim that logically speaking, death is pre-determined by a variety of natural factors and shouldn't be determined by humans because they lack the knowledge and power. You are completely wrong - humans can choose when to die (that's why suicidal people and murderers exist) and they do have the power as long as they get the consent and have the means to assist the said person in suicide. With your other arguments, they are too weak, irrational, and illogical to even refute. What does spending money have to do with this? I am sorry, but it is too vague, so please do explain it in the comments. Also, what does survival of the fittest have to do with being responsible for dying patients? Yes, ending their lives so you may not have to bear pain is seen as weak, but that is not an effective argument to convince the law to illegalize euthanasia. I hope for the best in you as your debating skills are extremely terrible as a child's.
23	fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00006-000	Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?	Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. This debate is on the topic of euthanasia, also called 'assisted suicide'. It is the killing of someone with their permission, usually due to pain or distress the person committing suicide has to undergo daily. I wish for a good and enjoyable debate!
50	dca59d39-2019-04-18T20:00:26Z-00001-000	Should everyone get a universal basic income?	minimum wage should exist look at minimum wage. it exists now. the stock market is not crumbles. inflation has not gone through the roof or caused bad problems. i thought that stock market statement wasn't worth dignifying with a response. i'm not even arguing everyone gets the same wages so why did you make that statement? also, as i said, we're not giving them an excessive minimum or the same as everyone else, but just an amount a single person could live off at the minimum without living on the streets, as i said. but, i suppose if i look beyond your words I might be able to salvage some reasoning, even though you did not state the reasoning. the argument of inflation. i'll simply refer you to my already stated argument on that matter. "also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living or run amok prices for everyone else. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum." to explain more, mcdonald's for example would charge more, and their suppliers would charge more and everyone else would too. yes inflation would increase. but, this would not be true inflation where everyone's wages is increased, so the increase in the minimum would be more proporitonally to hte increase in inflation.
44	c213a393-2019-04-18T17:11:09Z-00002-000	Should election day be a national holiday?	Lincoln-Douglas Debate! FDR once declared: "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting." Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. Definitions: " Democracy - democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens (Encarta) " Vote " an opinion cast in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office (American Heritage) " Ought " expresses desirability (Encarta) " Compulsory " mandatory; obligatory (Merriam Webster) I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the functionality and health of a society and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. When discussing a democracy and its decision-making process, we are discussing things that will affect the entire nation, requiring an analysis of the impacts on society. I offer the Criterion of Evaluative Consequentialism, defined as "that which maximizes the desired value to be best." In this case, the desired value is democracy, as implied by the resolution. The resolution revolves squarely around the notion of compulsory voting and its impact on and legitimacy with democratic governance. Thus, what is most likely to maximize democracy is best. Democracy also has a direct link with my value, as explained by Prof. Michael McFaul: "'democracy provides the best institutional arrangement for holding rulers accountable to the people. If leaders must compete for popular support to stay in power, they will respond to their citizens" preferences. Rulers who do not need popular support to gain or maintain power will likely be more responsive to whatever group " the family, the military, the mullahs, or the communist party " controls their fate. The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority. Not surprisingly, therefore, democracies "have consistently generated superior levels of social welfare" compared to autocracies at similar income levels. Second, the institutions of democracy prevent abusive rule, constrain bad government, and provide a mechanism for getting rid of corrupt or ineffective leaders. Truly oppressive leaders cannot remain in power for long if they must seek the electoral mandate of those being oppressed. Autocrats face no such constraints. Mass terror and genocide occur in autocracies, not democracies. Democracies do not prevent all abusive behavior, but over the centuries, democratic leaders have unquestionably inflicted less pain and suffering on their people than have autocratic leaders." It is my sole contention that compulsory voting is beneficial for the democratic process. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will boost turnout. "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [1] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Sub-point B: Compulsory voting reduces polarization. "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [3] Sub-point C: Compulsory voting reduces violence. "State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society "in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives"." [4] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change ..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [5] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [6] Sub-point D: A fairer campaign process would arise. "In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics"get-out-the-vote money could be shifted to other forms of campaign spending, but not all of it. A significant amount of spending on getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s"nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws. These groups are limited in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates"With this implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and be less beholden to donors"Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into account." [2] Sub-point E: Special interests will be reduced. "The existence of compulsory voting reduces the potential for fiscal spillovers between voters and non-voters and consequently reduces pressure groups" incentives to expend resources on lobbying"interest groups have more incentive to organize and spend lobbying resources advocating policies than taxpayers have to organize against these policies. Unorganized individual voters have little incentive to become informed or participate in the political process given the costs of voting relative to the small expected benefit. As more voters are coerced into the process, voting by the cost-bearing group will rise more than proportionately, simply because it is larger in size than the benefit-receiving group." [7] Thus, I affirm. [1] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [4] Jason Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 [5] Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 [6] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [7] Alberto Chong & Mauricio Olivera, Inter-American Development Bank & George Mason University, 2006, "On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries," Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper #533, May, [http://www.iadb.org...], p.9
4	1db9e0f1-2019-04-18T17:33:47Z-00000-000	Should corporal punishment be used in schools?	corporal punishment Sir, you are the one who instigated the debate. You have to present your position and I refute it. Not the other way around.
33	fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000	Should people become vegetarian?	Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat No questions, then lets get this party started! A few definitions. Vegetarian: "a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc." [1] Meat: "the flesh of animals as used for food."[1] First of all, why are some people vegetarians? some people think its because they are doing the animal a favor, but they are hurting the animal by not eating it. Now to my 4 points 1. The meat is already there. 2. It's a huge waste. 3. It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. 1. The meat is already there. The basic outline of how a cow becomes a hamburger, a cow is raised and then when it gets big they kill it and turn it into ground beef and then it gets packed and sold. One reasons why vegetarians choose to be a vegetarian is because they think they killed the animal by eating it, so in an attempt to save it they choose not to eat it. It is common sense that the vegetarian didn't kill the cow and that cow that they admired not to eat will go to waste if they don't eat it. 2. It's a huge waste. It's a huge waste to say no to eating meat. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will preserve the animal, but it would make the animal die for nothing. Lots of grains, and other resources are needed to raise animals to slaughter them to make meat, if they don't get eaten all of those resources go to waste. 3.It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. Meat contain a lot of needed nutrients such as iron. Meat is very easy to get and it contains protein and iron. Not eating meat can lead to unhealthiness due to not getting enough iron or protein or any other important nutrient in meat. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will make it so that the slaughter houses will stop making meat. Not eating meat will not change anything, but make some meat go to waste. That is my case on why vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat. Vote Pro! [1] = Dictionary.com (just search the words)
21	b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00002-000	Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?	Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Global Temparture and solar activity: And here is manmade co2 emmissions compared to natural co2 emmissions: CO2 emmissions are a byproduct of capitalism, which creates wealth and a higher quality of living for people around the globe, co2 emmissions also create more plantlife. So by arguing for reduced co2 emmissions my opponent is arguing for global poverty and deforestation.
49	e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000	Should body cameras be mandatory for police?	Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette
40	a490cfc2-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000	Should the death penalty be allowed?	Death Penalty Resolution: The death penalty should never be allowed as a form of punishment. capital punishment –noun punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.
37	8032a0c5-2019-04-18T11:42:27Z-00001-000	Is cell phone radiation safe?	Phone use in school I think we should be allowed to use phone in school as we might need to call our parent for an emergency. If in danger, your children can reach the authorities or a medical provider. Phones can be silenced during class or study periods, and active only in appropriate places. Cell phones create a convenience that was previously unavailable. With cell phones, you can easily reach your kids for any reason: to ask them questions, change plans, or to simply say hello. Most working people benefit from having their cell phones on them. They can access their email, call clients, check inventory, read the news, use software applications, and more. Students need to learn how to use their cell phones responsibly Administrators often take notes on their phones as part of teacher observations. Some teachers, coaches, and counsellors use their cell phones in school settings, too. It may not be permitted, but they are allowed to do so without the same consequences as students. Why shouldn"t students be able to do the same? Many phone apps offer visual representations of difficult-to-grasp subjects (like astronomy, science, or anatomy) that can assist visual learners and/or students who have dyslexia. Tablets offer the same services, but may provide a better user experience because of the size difference.
30	dbe0f23e-2019-04-18T14:36:42Z-00004-000	Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?	July Tournament C1) SuicidesA) Gun StorageHarvard Injury Control Research Center analyzed a number of national random-digit dial telephone surveys and found that, "Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner." And that, "Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely."(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)In, "a national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults… of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22 percent had a loaded gun, 32 percent had an unlocked gun and 8 percent had a gun stored loaded and unlocked."http://archive.sph.harvard.edu..."More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked. Because the guns used in youth suicides and unintentional injuries primarily come from victims' homes, storage practices that allow for easy access to a firearm pose a threat to the safety of young people."(http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...)Via the inability to store firearms properly; a teenager going through the extremely difficult time of adolescence has easy access to a weapon that they should not have. Whether that means that they bring it to school to show off to friends, to kill numerous classmates, or to kill themselves. Now while a substantial amount of teenagers wouldn't take advantage of this easy access for harmful uses, the fact that any amount could is too many.This easy access to firearms poses many other problems as well. Anyone with a mental disability, or falsely identifying a friend/family as an intruder, or someone who is drunk, someone who is on drugs (not in their right mind), a marital fight, a toddler or young child mistaking it for a toy, etc. could all end in an unwanted death.This ease of access to firearms spawns more homicides, more suicides, more accidental shootings, and more deaths.B) Firearms & SuicideI."Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment…states with more guns had higher rates of suicide." (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Owning a gun is a dangerous possession to have; you will actually be three times more likely to choose to commit suicide than someone who doesn't own a gun. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)II."In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death."(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)What we can draw from the evidence is two things:(1) Most suicides are done by firearms.(2) Suicide by firearm is the most lethal method as 85% end in death.Now while a ban on firearms will not decrease the amount of people that will commit suicide, it will save lives.Poison:For every successful suicide by poison, there are 42 attempted suicides by poison. That's a 2.38% fatality rate.(http://lostallhope.com...)Cutting Wrists/Arms/Legs:A 6% fatality rate, for around every 17 attempts, only 1 succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Overdose on Drugs:A 12.3% fatality rate, for every 8 attempts, only one succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Hanging:75% fatality rate, for every 4 attempts, 3 succeed.(http://www.medscape.com...)If someone fails to commit suicide, they are rushed to a hospital where they are treated for their injuries. Then they are taken to get treatment to help their depression, this treatment works 80-90% of the time and the victim does not commit suicide again.(http://www.save.org...)"Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help."(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)Many people who commit suicide don't actually want to die; they just want help with their problem. Having a suicide attempt less likely to be successful gives the victim the opportunity to seek help, fix their problem, and save their life. A ban on guns fixes this issue.C2) Firearm Accidents"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…"(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Firearms are extremely deadly weapons; therefore extreme caution and responsibility are necessary when handling them. Despite the aggressive training required to get a license;"Take a 14-hour course (8 hours classroom, 6 hours range) in the carrying and use of firearms given by a Bureau- certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau certified training facility… Pass the written and range exams given at the end of the course"(http://www.bsis.ca.gov...)This goes to show that despite intensive training measures, gun accidents still occur.Firearm accidents are also much more likely to occur than other harmful accidents. For example, poison containers come with lids that are generally more difficult to remove and knives require very solid pressure in certain areas on the body to be fatal, all a gun requires is a pull of the trigger.Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave the person who committed the act with a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life.With gun accidents sending 200 people to the emergency room every day, and thousands of people with gunshot wounds every year, we have to realize that guns are not worth the risk.C3) HomicideA)"Handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from… or homicide (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.7), and particularly among those dying from… or gun homicide (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.3), than among controls. No such differences were seen for non-gun suicide or homicide… Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths."The study concluded that; "Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun…legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"(http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...)Evidence shows that the act of purchasing a handgun significantly increases your chances of a violent death. These statistics match what you would expect from a society where guns are legal. If someone is wielding a gun against an attacker who just wants to steal some items from their home, they are placing both themselves and the attacker at greater risk of death in the process.B)"Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention."(http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)Of the 12, 765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with guns. That's 69.4% of all murders performed with a firearm.(http://www.infoplease.com...)If guns are banned, a murderer will have to use some other type of weapon that is less effective than a gun would be. A ban on guns would lower the effectiveness of murders and save the lives of murder victims.Conclusion:The United States should enact a nation-wide ban on all firearms to; reduce suicide rates, reduce deaths from accidents, and reduce homicide rates.
22	402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00003-000	Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?	Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.
35	aab37460-2019-04-18T18:06:44Z-00006-000	Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?	Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. better- more advantageous or effective, usually in a positive way.Why raping a baby is less effective than getting raped by one.Positive Effects of Child Rape- Nothing.Negative Effects of Child Rape-Injury Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. Infections Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported. Neurological damage Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development. Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects; Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood; Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse; and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children. Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system. Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected. Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.Psychological harm Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis,chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty, crime in adulthood and suicide. A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations. A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.83 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused." Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse. Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism. Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services. A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former. Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children. The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used. The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force. The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children, and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments. Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories. The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse. When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent. Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology. Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.Positive Effects of Getting Raped By a Child-Nothing.Negative Effects of Getting Raped By a Child- It can be detrimental to the victim's psyche. I.E, Embarrasment.Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
40	7ce71e90-2019-04-18T12:23:57Z-00000-000	Should the death penalty be allowed?	Death Penalty Should be Legal I have read many cases where innocent people have been given the death penalty. I think jail time is a better solution. Yes, it costs more money, but it will save lives. And to be honest, and I think I am not the only one who thinks this, I would rather be killed than live in jail for my life. And we never know what happened. Who are we to say that the murderer didn't frame the convicted murderer?
41	94247d26-2019-04-18T12:25:48Z-00006-000	Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?	The Federal Reserve: The thing is, the congress doesn't print money, loan the government and do what the Federal Reserve already do. Abolishing it would result years of economic uncertainty because you just can't replace it overnight. And no, the federal reserve is constitutional. On Dec. 23 1913, the United States president Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, thus creating the Federal Reserve. Section 13. Powers of Federal Reserve Banks 1. Receipt of deposits and collections Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the United States, deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts, payable upon presentation, or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills; or, solely for purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from other Federal reserve banks deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, or checks upon other Federal reserve banks, and checks and drafts, payable upon presentation within its district, or other items, and maturing notes and bills payable within its district; or, solely for the purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from any nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, checks and drafts payable upon presentation or other items, or maturing notes and bills: Provided, Such nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution maintains with the Federal reserve bank of its district a balance in such amount as the Board determines taking into account items in transit, services provided by the Federal Reserve Bank, and other factors as the Board may deem appropriate; Provided further, That nothing in this or any other section of this Act shall be construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank or other depository institution from making reasonable charges, to be determined and regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but in no case to exceed 10 cents per $100 or fraction thereof, based on the total of checks and drafts presented at any one time, for collection or payment of checks and drafts and remission therefor by exchange or otherwise; but no such charges shall be made against the Federal reserve banks. [12 USC 342. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 234); and March 31, 1980 (94 Stat. 139). With respect to the receipt by Reserve Banks of checks and drafts on deposit, see also this act, section 16.] Back to Top 2. Discount of commercial, agricultural, and industrial paper Upon the indorsement of any of its member banks, which shall be deemed a waiver of demand, notice and protest by such bank as to its own indorsement exclusively, any Federal reserve bank may discount notes, drafts, and bills of exchange arising out of actual commercial transactions; that is, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange issued or drawn for agricultural, industrial, or commercial purposes, or the proceeds of which have been used, or are to be used, for such purposes, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to have the right to determine or define the character of the paper thus eligible for discount, within the meaning of this Act. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prohibit such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange, secured by staple agricultural products, or other goods, wares, or merchandise from being eligible for such discount, and the notes, drafts, and bills of exchange of factors issued as such making advances exclusively to producers of staple agricultural products in their raw state shall be eligible for such discount; but such definition shall not include notes, drafts, or bills covering merely investments or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading in stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States. Notes, drafts, and bills admitted to discount under the terms of this paragraph must have a maturity at the time of discount of not more than 90 days, exclusive of grace. [12 USC 343. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1478). As used in this paragraph the phrase "bonds and notes of Government of the United States" includes Treasury bills or certificates of indebtedness. (See act of June 17, 1929, amending section 5 of Second Liberty Bond Act of Sept. 24, 1917). As to eligibility for discount under this paragraph of notes representing loans to finance building construction, see this act, section 24).] Back to Top 3. Discounts for individuals, partnerships, and corporations In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize any Federal reserve bank, during such periods as the said board may determine, at rates established in accordance with the provisions of section 14, subdivision (d), of this Act, to discount for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange when such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange are indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank: Provided, That before discounting any such note, draft, or bill of exchange, the Federal reserve bank shall obtain evidence that such participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions. All such discounts for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility shall be subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe. As soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Board shall establish, by regulation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the policies and procedures governing emergency lending under this paragraph. Such policies and procedures shall be designed to ensure that any emergency lending program or facility is for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses and that any such program is terminated in a timely and orderly fashion. The policies and procedures established by the Board shall require that a Federal reserve bank assign, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer, a lendable value to all collateral for a loan executed by a Federal reserve bank under this paragraph in determining whether the loan is secured satisfactorily for purposes of this paragraph. The Board shall establish procedures to prohibit borrowing from programs and facilities by borrowers that are insolvent. Such procedures may include a certification from the chief executive officer (or other authorized officer) of the borrower, at the time the borrower initially borrows under the program or facility (with a duty by the borrower to update the certification if the information in the certification materially changes), that the borrower is not insolvent. A borrower shall be considered insolvent for purposes of this subparagraph, if the borrower is in bankruptcy, resolution under title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding. A program or facility that is structured to remove assets from the balance sheet of a single and specific company, or that is established for the purpose of assisting a single and specific company avoid bankruptcy, resolution under title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, shall not be considered a program or facility with broad-based eligibility. The Board may not establish any program or facility under this paragraph without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Board shall provide to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives-- not later than 7 days after the Board authorizes any loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, a report that includes-- the justification for the exercise of authority to provide such assistance; the identity of the recipients of such assistance; the date and amount of the assistance, and form in which the assistance was provided; and the material terms of the assistance, including-- (aa) duration; (bb) collateral pledged and the value thereof; (cc) all interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value to be received in exchange for the assistance; (dd) any requirements imposed on the recipient with respect to employee compensation, distribution of dividends, or any other corporate decision in exchange for the assistance; and (ee) the expected costs to the taxpayers of such assistance; and once every 30 days, with respect to any outstanding loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, written updates on-- the value of collateral; the amount of interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value received in exchange for the assistance; and the expected or final cost to the taxpayers of such assistance. The information required to be submitted to Congress under subparagraph (C) related to-- the identity of the participants in an emergency lending program or facility commenced under this paragraph; the amounts borrowed by each participant in any such program or facility; identifying details concerning the assets or collateral held by, under, or in connection with such a program or facility,
2	497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00006-000	Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?	Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Also happy holidays! Marijuana-. http://www.drugabuse.gov... Tobacco-. http://healthliteracy.worlded.org... E-cigarettes-. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would prefer a well equipped opponent for this debate where as this can be an extremely controversial topic. The first three links should get you started!
37	b7a04059-2019-04-18T18:01:45Z-00005-000	Is cell phone radiation safe?	Policy Debate - Transportation Infrastructure Contention 1: Inherency _A___US Ports are lacking security now Douglas Frantz, previously chief investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Managing Director of Kroll"s Business Intelligence Washington office, investigative reporter, 7/15/12, "Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers", http://www.washingtonpost.com... The Obama administration has failed to meet a legal deadline for scanning all shipping containers for radioactive material before they reach the United States, a requirement aimed at strengthening maritime security and preventing terrorists from smuggling a nuclear device into any of the nation"s 300 sea and river ports. The Department of Homeland Security was given until this month to ensure that 100 percent of inbound shipping containers are screened at foreign ports. But the department"s secretary, Janet Napolitano, informed Congress in May that she was extending a two-year blanket exemption to foreign ports because the screening is proving too costly and cumbersome. She said it would cost $16 billion to implement scanning measures at the nearly 700 ports worldwide that ship to the United States. Instead, the DHS relies on intelligence-gathering and analysis to identify "high-risk" containers, which are checked before being loaded onto ships. Under this system, fewer than half a percent of the roughly 10 million containers arriving at U.S. ports last year were scanned before departure. The DHS says that those checks turned up narcotics and other contraband but that there have been no public reports of smuggled nuclear material. In response to the 9/11 Commission, Congress passed a law in 2007 specifying that no cargo container may enter the United States before being scanned with imaging equipment and a radiation-detection device. The administration"s failure to meet the deadline has left some members of Congress and outside experts concerned about whether the threat is being taken seriously enough. "I personally do not believe they intend to comply with the law," Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the 2007 law, said in an interview. "This is a real terrorist threat, and it has a solution. We can"t afford to wait until a catastrophic attack." The DHS says monitors scan 99 percent of the containers for radiation after they arrive at U.S. ports. But experts say the monitors at U.S. ports are not sophisticated enough to detect nuclear devices or highly enriched uranium, which emit low levels of radiation. The Government Accountability Office has warned that a nuclear device could be detonated while at a port " containers often sit for days awaiting radiation checks " causing billions of dollars in damage in addition to the loss of life. Estimates of damage caused by a nuclear detonation at a major port range from tens of billions of dollars to $1 trillion. Shipping containers are potentially ideal for smuggling weapons, people and other illicit cargo; ensuring the integrity of the contents is difficult and costly. The standard container is 40 feet long and 8 feet high and holds more than 30 tons of cargo. A large vessel carries 3,000 or more containers from hundreds of different shippers and many ports. And a single container can hold cargo from many customers. Counterterrorism experts have worried about port vulnerability since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, reportedly told interrogators he had considered sending explosives to the United States hidden inside a shipment of personal computers from Japan. States, including North and South Carolina, changes in container security measures are of great concern in these communities. __B__Major security risks are extremely high now at our ports. Hahn 12 (Congresswoman Janice Hahn, Congressional Documents and Publications, May 9, 2012, "Congresswoman Laura Richardson Asks GAO to Examine Port Security Vulnerabilities"; Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) News Release, http://richardson.house.gov...) Congresswoman Janice Hahn"s bill, H.R. 4005 "Gauging American Port Security Act" or Gaps Act, today successfully passed by a unanimous vote in the Homeland Security Committee. H.R. 4005 directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive classified examination of remaining gaps in port Security and prepare a plan to address them. "Pretending a threat doesn"t exist does not make it go away," Rep. Hahn said. "The lesson of 9/11 is to be vigilant and proactive in seeking out and preventing our country"s most pressing threats. More than a decade after 9/11, our ports remain possible points of entry for terrorists and their weapons. Ports are also a key part of our economy. If an attack were ever to occur, it would cause a catastrophic loss of jobs and damage to our economic recovery. This situation requires a legislative solution and I hope that the resulting blueprint will guide Congress in creating effective legislation to help guard our ports." Ships make 50,000 calls a year on U.S. ports, carrying two billion tons of freight and 134 million passengers. Each day our ports move both imports and exports totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods through all 50 states. Additionally, ports move 99.4 percent of overseas cargo volume by weight and generate $3.95 trillion in international trade. Unfortunately less than 3% of cargo coming into the country is scanned, giving terrorist opportunities to smuggle themselves or their weapons into the United States with little risk of detection. An attack on the Port of Los Angeles complex, for example, would cost billions to the regional economy and put thousands of port employees out of work and cause the demise of hundreds of local businesses. Thus my partner Josh and I present the following plan Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in radio frequency identification and related technology for port security Our plan will be enforced through normal means. The affirmative team reserves the right to fiat and define all terms. Solvency __A__An investment in Radio Frequency Identification will allow for improved security and efficiency. Tsai 12-7-07 (Louis Tsai, Part of the University of California, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, "Container Tracking with RFID and Port Security", WINMEC, http://www.winmec.ucla.edu...) Large-scale implementation of RFID into ports has not occurred yet. It is still in its early stages. Many trials and tests have been conducted at ports throughout the world. Benefits ranging from lower operating cost to higher efficiency of flow of goods have been experienced. RFID is able to provide reliable information at any time and be able to perform security tasks that would otherwise require many people and much time. An investment in RFID can, thus, serve two purposes: as a business accelerator in terms of supply chain efficiency, and as an enabler for improved security12. B. Technology solves Lukas, 4/8/2004 (Aaron, "Protection without Protectionism: Reconciling Trade and Homeland Security" Center for Trade Policy Studies CATO Trade Policy Analysis No 27.) The future of trade security will rely heavily on technology. There will never be enough human inspectors to look into every cargo container, truck, and rail car. Cargo cannot be guarded 24 hours a day. Technology promises to bridge the manpower gap by enabling the continual monitoring and tracking of freight. The use of electronics is already prevalent in commercial shipping. Cameras observe storage and loading areas at factories, ports, and warehouses. Digital identification cards restrict access to sensitive areas and store digital information about employees, including photographs, and increasingly, biometric data. Information about a cargo container"s contents is electronically transmitted to Customs officials before the container is even loaded onto a ship. Ironically, the single most visible element of the trading system"the cargo container" remains stubbornly low-tech and notoriously insecure. Indeed, instructions on how to break into a shipping container in under two minutes are readily available on the Internet.73 Most container seals currently in use are designed to detect intrusion, not stop it. Yet even in that limited role, many container seals are easily defeated. Advantage 1: terrorism Al Qaida is targeting maritime transport Goslin, 2012 (Charles Goslin, Vice President of International Operations for Duos Technologies, Inc. senior advisor to the Regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) in the U.S. Duos Technology Library "Maritime and Port Security White Paper" http://www.duostechnologies.com... ) Global trade is dependent mainly on maritime transport. It is estimated that more than 46,000 vessels and 4,000 ports make up the world"s maritime transportation system. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimated in 2001 that 5.8 billion tons of goods were traded by sea in 2001; more than 80 percent of the world"s trade. This fact alone makes maritime networks an attractive target of terrorists. Although it has been some time since Osama bin Laden has been seen, it is ominous that in one of his last video appearances in October 2004 he confirmed that his agenda remained primarily economic. While terrorists have in the past targeted land or aviation assets, experts believe that this could soon change to include shipping, port, coastal facilities, and container/container yards are increasingly vulnerable because secondary emphasis has been placed on hardening these assets due to the urgent need to address threats to aviation facilities and transportation. Intelligence officials have identified cargo freighters they believe are controlled by Al Qaida, which could be used by the terrorist network or its affiliates to ferry operatives, explosive components, cash or commodities on the high seas. One example is a well-dressed middle-eastern man discovered by Italian police who had hidden himself in a cargo container destined for the U.S. He was equipped with a bed, toilet, water supply, satellite phone, laptop computer, cameras and maps. He also had security passes to various airports in the U.S. RFID"s take away the risk of terrorist accessing ports IBM 2006 (International Business Machines Corporation, written September 28th, 2006, http://www.ibm.com..., accessed September 10th, 2012, AL) In a volatile environment, such as an oil refinery or gas facility, disaster is just a split-second away. Whether natural or manmade, the first priority is always employee safety. An RFID system can offer instant identification and an accurate headcount of evacuated employees. And with the possibility of terrorist attack, tracking people in and around sensitive areas of the facility is critical to protecting people and assets alike. RFID transponders can help guide rescue teams to injured or trapped employees. Control systems can authorize or de-authorize individuals or vehicles for different areas of the plant, with real-time alerts for violation of rules. Tracking systems offer frame-by-frame instant replay of past events for post analysis. In addition to locating people, RFID allows instant identification of high-value equipment and strategic production materials C. Terrorists very likely and would most likely use container ships to smuggle weapons Konkel, 2005, (Todd Konkel- professor Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University) "Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe", International Policy Solutions, http://irps.ucsd.edu...) This nation faces a potentially greater threat, however, from a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) making its way into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that enter this country every day. In June 2004, the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation issued a memo reflecting this view: "Despite the importance of seaport security, perhaps no other mode of transportation is currently more vulnerable to future attacks than our Nation"s Marine Transportation System."1 Although a future attack involving a chemical or biological WMD could have tragic consequences, a nuclear weapon, which could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in an instant, presents the most concerning threat. In Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Harvard professor Graham Allison shares a brief but revealing excerpt from a private conversation that took place with former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge in February 2004. When asked what worried him most, Secretary Ridge replied with a single word: "nuclear."2 Later in his book, Allison states that a nuclear weapon used by terrorists in an attack on the United States "is far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile."3 The threat of a nuclear attack involving a seaborne container lies at the nexus of two critically important security issues: the availability of nuclear materials and the vulnerability of cargo containers. Although the U.S. government has taken a number of steps in the past few years to secure nuclear materials and improve the security of the 2 country"s ports, the threat of a nuclear weapon entering the United States undetected in a shipping container remains very real. Much additional work, including international standards for container security and expanded international cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, is necessary to prevent a catastrophe that could dwarf the tragedy of 9/11. And, A port attack collapses global free trade " our internal link outweighs " 3 week timeframe Flynn 03 (Stephen, Nat"l Sec Studies, "The Fragile state of container security," testimony before the senate, March 20 http://www.cfr.org...) A year later I joined with former senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart in preparing our report, "America: Still Unprepared"Still In Danger." We observed that "nineteen men wielding box-cutters forced the United States to do to itself what no adversary could ever accomplish: a successful blockade of the U.S. economy. If a surprise terrorist attack were to happen tomorrow involving the sea, rail, or truck transportation systems that carry millions of tons of trade to the United States each day, the response would likely be the same"a self-imposed global embargo." Based on that analysis, we identified as second of the six critical mandates that deserve the nation"s immediate attention: "Make trade security a global priority; the system for moving goods affordably and reliably around the world is ripe for exploitation and vulnerable to mass disruption by terrorists." This is why the topic of today"s hearing is so important. The stakes are enormous. U.S. prosperity"and much of its power"relies on its ready access to global markets. Both the scale and pace at which goods move between markets has exploded in recent years thanks in no small part to the invention and proliferation of the intermodal container. These ubiquitous boxes"most come in the 40"x8"x8" size"have transformed the transfer of cargo from a truck, train, and ship into the transportation equivalent of connecting Lego blocks. The result has been to increasingly diminish the role of distance for a supplier or a consumer as a constraint in the world marketplace. Ninety percent of the world"s freight now moves in a container. Companies like Wal-Mart and General Motors move up to 30 tons of merchandise or parts across the vast Pacific Ocean from Asia to the West Coast for about $1600. The transatlantic trip runs just over a $1000"which makes the postage stamp seem a bit overpriced. But the system that underpins the incredibly efficient, reliable, and affordable movement of global freight has one glaring shortcoming in the post-9-11 world"it was built without credible safeguards to prevent it from being exploited or targeted by terrorists and criminals. Prior to September 11, 2001, virtually anyone in the world could arrange with an international shipper or carrier to have an empty intermodal container delivered to their home or workplace. They then could load it with tons of material, declare in only the most general terms what the contents were, "seal" it with a 50-cent lead tag, and send it on its way to any city and town in the United States. The job of transportation providers was to move the box as expeditiously as possible. Exercising any care to ensure that the integrity of a container"s contents was not compromised may have been a commercial practice, but it was not a requirement. The responsibility for making sure that goods loaded in a box were legitimate and authorized was shouldered almost exclusively by the importing jurisdiction. But as the volume of containerized cargo grew exponentially, the number of agents assigned to police that cargo stayed flat or even declined among most trading nations. The rule of thumb in the inspection business is that it takes five agents three hours to conduct a thorough physical examination of a single full intermodal container. Last year nearly 20 million containers washed across America"s borders via a ship, train, and truck. Frontline agencies had only enough inspectors and equipment to examine between 1-2 percent of that cargo. Thus, for would-be terrorists, the global intermodal container system that is responsible for moving the overwhelming majority of the world"s freight satisfies the age-old criteria of opportunity and motive. "Opportunity" flows from (1) the almost complete absence of any security oversight in the loading and transporting of a box from its point of origin to its final destination, and (2) the fact that growing volume and velocity at which containers move around the planet create a daunting "needle-in-the-haystack" problem for inspectors. "Motive" is derived from the role that the container now plays in underpinning global supply chains and the likely response by the U.S. government to an attack involving a container. Based on statements by the key officials at U.S. Customs, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation, should a container be used as a "poor man"s missile," the shipment of all containerized cargo into our ports and across our borders would be halted. As a consequence, a modest investment by a terrorist could yield billions of dollars in losses to the U.S. economy by shutting down"even temporarily"the system that moves "just-in-time" shipments of parts and goods. Given the current state of container security, it is hard to imagine how a post-event lock-down on container shipments could be either prevented or short-lived. One thing we should have learned from the 9-11 attacks involving passenger airliners, the follow-on anthrax attacks, and even last fall Washington sniper spree is that terrorist incidents pose a special challenge for public officials. In the case of most disasters, the reaction by the general public is almost always to assume the event is an isolated one. Even if the post-mortem provides evidence of a systemic vulnerability, it often takes a good deal of effort to mobilize a public policy response to redress it. But just the opposite happens in the event of a terrorist attack"especially one involving catastrophic consequences. When these attacks take place, the assumption by the general public is almost always to presume a general vulnerability unless there is proof to the contrary. Government officials have to confront head-on this loss of public confidence by marshalling evidence that they have a credible means to manage the risk highlighted by the terrorist incident. In the interim as recent events have shown, people will refuse to fly, open their mail, or even leave their homes. If a terrorist were to use a container as a weapon-delivery devise, the easiest choice would be high-explosives such as those used in the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Some form of chemical weapon, perhaps even involving hazardous materials, is another likely scenario. A bio-weapon is a less attractive choice for a terrorist because of the challenge of dispersing the agent in a sufficiently concentrated form beyond the area where the explosive devise goes off. A "dirty bomb" is the more likely threat vs. a nuclear weapon, but all these scenarios are conceivable since the choice of a weapon would not be constrained by any security measures currently in place in our seaports or within the intermodal transportation industry. This is why a terrorist attack involving a cargo container could cause such profound economic disruption. An incident triggered by even a conventional weapon going off in a box could result in a substantial loss of life. In the immediate aftermath, the general public will want reassurance that one of the many other thousands of containers arriving on any given day will not pose a similar risk. The President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other keys officials responsible for the security of the nation would have to stand before a traumatized and likely skeptical American people and outline the measures they have in place to prevent another such attack. In the absence of a convincing security framework to manage the risk of another incident, the public would likely insist that all containerized cargo be stopped until adequate safeguards are in place. Even with the most focused effort, constructing that framework from scratch could take months"even years. Yet, within three weeks, the entire worldwide intermodal transportation industry would effectively be brought to its knees"as would much of the freight movements that make up international trade. ____ Economic collapse leads to Global nuclear war Bearden 2k (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc) ET Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades. _____Nuclear war causes the earth to explode CHALKO 2003 (Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L, "Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?" http://sci-e-research.com...) Consequences of using modern nuclear weapons can be far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the fact that most of the heat generated in the planetary interior is a result of nuclear decay. Over the last few decades, all superpowers have been developing so-called "neutron bombs". These bombs are designed to emit intensive neutron radiation while creating relatively little local mechanical damage. Military are very keen to use neutron bombs in combat, because lethal neutron radiation can peneterate even the largest and deepest bunkers. However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes naturally present inside the planet to disintegrate. This disintegration in turn, generates more neutron and other radiation. The entire process causes increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater than the initial energy of the bomb. It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this variable delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This observable fact CANNOT be explained by direct energy of the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior, however, is a VERY PLAUSIBLE and realistic explanation. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of unstable radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to explode.
20	8a2c0d8d-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00002-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	FDR was not a great president. Con Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote
3	82c81407-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00015-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	Free trade promotes growth in all countries. Through global competition, specialization, and access to technology, free trade and openness allow countries to grow faster—India and China started in the 1980s with restrictive trade policies, but as they have liberalized they have also improved their growth enormously1. The International Trade Commission estimates that a free trade agreement between just Colombia and the US would increase the US GDP by $2.5 billion2. When industries have to compete with competition around the world, they are pushed towards innovation and efficiency. Entrepreneurs are more productive if they have to compete. Free trade increases access to technology which also increases overall development. Because of free trade, prices are lower for everyone. Trade offers benefits to both developed and developing nations by encouraging competition, efficiency, lower prices, and opening up new markets to tap into. 1Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine 2White House (2010), "Benefits of US-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement" improve this
44	80e3ce8f-2019-04-18T15:56:43Z-00007-000	Should election day be a national holiday?	Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting Thanks to Romanii for this debate! I will now present my case.DEFINITIONS [1, 2]Democracy - "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." It may also be some combination of both the former and latter forms.Compulsory - "required by a law or rule: mandatory"Vote - "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; esp.: one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office"Justified - "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable"OBSERVATIONS1. "On balance" implies an analysis of the wieght of the evidence. It is not my job to those that compulsory voting is always beneficial, nor is it my job to show that it would work in every democracy. Merely, it is my job to show that, in general, is is beneficial and justified.2. It is my job to show that compulsory voting (CV) is "justified." This can be done, as shown with my definition, in several ways, as long as I can show a good reason for having CV. The two main way in which this can be done are to show that CV is just or morally right, or to show that is reasonable given the circumstance.3. The resolution demands a discussion of what is best in democracies. Therefore, when analyzing CV, we must ascertain whether CV is beneficial within the context of a democracy--does it promote an effective nation-state, does it promote democratic ideals, does it comport with democratic rights, etc.ARGUMENTSContention One: TurnoutSub-point A: Low turnout is deterimental within a democracy"The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor...even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4]The conclusion we can draw is simple, democratic values such as egalitarianism and justice are circumvented when turnout is low. Moreover, democratic government is more likely to address the concerns of all constituent groups if all groups turn out to vote--thus, it makes government more willing to comprehensively and holistically tackle problems, rather than honing in on the issues on an elite few. Finally, I would reiterate the sentiment so aptly expressed by the American Revolutionaries: "No taxation without representation." If certain groups don't or are unable toget out to vote, how can we say they are represented? How can we be a government of the people?Sub-point B: CV solves for low turnout"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [5] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [6]Sub-point C: CV solves for polarization and lack of representativeness"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized...by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [7]Contention Two: ViolenceSub-point A: Stability is necessary for effective governanceI would truly be surprised if Con contested this, but the argument is simple. A state requires relative stability in order to carry out day-to-day functions. Areas ravaged by violence, natural disasters, etc. tend to have fewer amenities and poorer governmental infrastructure. Therefore, stability is beneficial.Sub-point B: CV reduces violence, solving for a major cause of violence."State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society 'in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives'." [3] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives...the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent...Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4]Contention Three: CitizenshipDemocracy is unique in that places the responsibility of governance in the hands of the people, and, to whom much power is given, much is expected. In this case, we, as the holders of authority, have a responsibility to vote and to make conscientious voting choices. Even if you buy none of my other utilitarian arguments, you can look to this one to vote Pro. "The rights-based defense of mandatory electoral participation starts from the premise that duties and obligations are intimately connected to rights. Voting is a necessary attribute of citizenship; it is a public trust, a moral obligation, a duty of citizenship. Democratic obligations thus follow directly from democratic rights. The obligation to participate in elections can be defended on the grounds of equality inherent in the definition of the democratic choice situation; all members of the community have a duty to contribute to collective decision-making if they are to enjoy its fruits, irrespective of any consequentialist arguments (considered below) as to the impact of such participation. " [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://dictionary.reference.com...3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 1954 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-25 - http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...6 - Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-57 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920
20	84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00000-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up. 1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy. 2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention. 3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern. 4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation. 5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the "huge jump". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed. 6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented. 7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic. 8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent did not scan through well enough. See "Constroversies" "none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion" "indicated no statistically significant findings" "Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated" 9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage. 10. It actually is not relevant. Number of "drug abusers" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a "drug abuser" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving. 11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean "take as you please"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me. 12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of "milk" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid. I would also like to note that while watching "Yakitate Japan!", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times. http://altmedangel.com... http://www.goatworld.com... http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com... http://www.crohns.net... http://www.associatedcontent.com... Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the "average person" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer. Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.
41	574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00003-000	Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?	Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!
17	6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00006-000	Should recreational marijuana be legal?	Marijuana should be legal Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet
8	271173e1-2019-04-18T15:21:14Z-00001-000	Should abortion be legal?	Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL Well, in the special cases you mentioned, abortion could be a good thing. But otherwise, abortion should not be legal. If there isn't anything wrong with the fetus, abortion shouldn't be legal
29	90d30959-2019-04-18T11:36:39Z-00001-000	Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?	Guns Should Become Illegal in the US I know it's old hat, but I haven't actually taken part in a good guns debate before! First round is acceptance (obviously). Then lock and load! Pardon the pun!!!!
20	fbd3b59c-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00003-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	Vegan/Animal Rights "we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this." I thought you were arguing that eating meat is 100% natural... "You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution." You must not know what evolution is. What is your point?? "We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring." We were not "given" theses things. They were carried by our genes because they helped for survival. " If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race." It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore. "Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores." We classify animals by the way they are built. We are built like herbivores. Most people believe humans are carnivorous/omnivorous creatures"atop the food chain"who have been eating meat, eggs and dairy since the beginning of time. I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain. Most large herbivores such as rhinos, hippos, elephants and gorillas could also kill a human easily, if provoked. These animals are also ahead of us in the food chain. Humans, historically and scientifically, have always been near the bottom of the food chain. Killing during a one-on-one confrontation without weapons, and the ability to consume bloody raw flesh right from the bone without having it cause disease later on in life, have always been the only true factors in determining physiology and placement in the food chain. All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. Humans have to cook certain parts of the dismembered animal so we don't become violently ill. That unequivocally makes us fake carnivores/omnivores. Our human physiology is such that all the tools, weapons, hubris, deceit and technology have not magically transformed us into carnivorous/omnivorous creatures. Many anthropologists and medical experts attest to the fact that humans are completely herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states, "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh"which contains cholesterol and saturated fat"was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." Dr. Milton Mills wrote an indisputable essay about human physiology as well. In their book The Vegetarian Way, nutritionists Virginia and Mark Messina compiled an easy-to-understand chart comparing human bodies to those of herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. " I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating" You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people?? "it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt." You wanna talk about debt? It takes hundreds of gallons of water to make 1 pound of meat. Hundreds of pounds of corn, soy, and other grains. The meat industry is putting us in debt. "Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument:" Do you see me cherry picking you arguments for grammar errors?? No. Sounds like you are just trying to win votes. "If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you." Sure... Let's compare the bodies of humans and herbivores to the bodies of carnivores and omnivores. First, the length of intestines in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body (I am being generous compared to the research of Mills and the Messinas). In contrast, the length of intestines in carnivores/omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso. (The length of the trunk/torso is used as the means of comparison rather than overall body length or height because humans are bipedal animals whereas most other animals are quadrupeds.) Moreover, the interior surface of human intestines is heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivores/omnivores tend to be smooth in comparison. The relatively short intestinal length in carnivores/omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allow rotting animal flesh, animal protein, casein, cholesterol, trans fatty acids and the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products to pass through quickly; that is why it's impossible for any real carnivore/omnivore to clog their arteries. Clogged arteries, however, affects more than 50% percent of all meat, dairy and egg-eaters in this day and age! In previous generations atherosclerosis affected around 35% of the meat, dairy and egg-eating population. The only surprising aspect of the aforementioned study was the scientists' refusal to blame animal products as the main cause of atherosclerosis. Scientists, however, like all meat- dairy and egg-eating addicts, succumb to the same idiocy and incoherency of addiction-related problem-solving, too. Fortunately, some medical professionals aren't addicts and are capable of explaining the truth. Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham Heart Study (the world's longest running heart study), supports the aforementioned findings with additional claims about cancer rates dropping 60 percent if people stopped eating meat, cheese, milk and eggs. Other dietary and non-dietary factors can affect heart health, too. Sugar, the excessive amount of fat found in oils, stress, a lack of sleep, the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta, smoking tobacco, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. Therefore, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. Veganism not only ensures a greater reduction of cruelty on this planet than any other measure you could take; it also prevents, treats or cures heart diseases, prostate, colon, breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, obesity, asthma and impotence, just to name a few. According to a plethora of scientific articles, most meat, dairy and egg-eaters will get cancer, osteoporosis or diabetes, while more than 50 percent will have a non-genetically-induced heart attack or stroke. Concerning cancer, there's no doubt that sugar, the oil and fat in fried foods, artificial additives, human-made trans fatty acids found in junk food, and the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta cause health problems, while non-dietary factors harm us, too. Stress, a lack of sleep, smoking tobacco, chemical pollution, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. However, since animal flesh and the things that come out of animals are always toxic, the main cause of cancer will always be animal protein, casein, the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products, and the 2-9 percent of naturally-occurring trans-fatty acids found in meat and dairy. Even though we're all born with cancer cells, the cells won't "activate" and turn deadly unless they are "expressed". So, preemptively amputating one's breasts (mastectomy), or taking some other drastic action, will NOT prevent cancer development if the cell "activators" are still present. Since cancer thrives in the acidic environment that animal protein creates, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. cited: For purposes of this essay I will use the abbreviation "meat-eater" to refer to any human who eats not only meat, but also dairy products, eggs, and honey. 3. For although there are bodies more massive than Jupiter beyond the trans-Neptunian bodies, at that distance the sun's gravitation would be too weak to hold such a massive body within an orbit about the sun. 4. Henry S. Salt, Logic of the Larder. Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914). In this context Salt is actually referring to yet another pathetic defense of meat-eating, which argues that animals should be grateful to the persons who eat them, since without a demand for these animals, they would never have existed! To be honest, I was sorely tempted to write another essay in this series, and call it The Insipid "But the Animals Wouldn't Exist if We Didn't Eat Them" Argument. However, no one can improve on what Salt has already had to say about it, so I gladly refer readers to his essay instead.
15	90912fb0-2019-04-18T13:22:21Z-00005-000	Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?	Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent For the purpose of the debate, assume the death penalty is being used against murderers (not counting accidental murders) and assume the criminal justice system is perfect (no one is wrongly found guilty in court).
10	6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00000-000	Should any vaccines be required for children?	Not getting children vaccinated Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating "rings of immunity" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!
18	2c9ce16e-2019-04-18T17:14:44Z-00001-000	Should churches remain tax-exempt?	Aboriton should remain illegal Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument. His comments in bold, mine are plainWhat I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain.But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves.YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not?The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified.Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.Do I win? Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation. Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises:1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb2) The life in the womb is human3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb? Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere: You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.
3	d81957dd-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00001-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	should homework be allowed i dont think so beacuse why do we spend 7 to 8 hours in school and then having to homework
20	f0de1dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:58Z-00001-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning This was originally written to be posted for Round 2, but I'd missed the deadline by somewhere between 5 and 12 minutes. By and large, civilian_kritik posted a fair reply, but has not, as is pointed out in the comments section, presented a reason for drinking to be considered rude in the morning that wouldn't apply to another time of day. ~~~~~ Thanks civilian_kritik! Sorry for taking so long, but I hope it's fun. In short, the thorough extent of the matter is threefold: 1) Restrictions are an infringement on a person's rights, and as that person is equally a member of society, they should be avoided without a greater reason. Therefore, my opponent needs to explain why morning prohibition is a desirable rule of etiquette. 2) Rudeness is defined as a violation of a standard which leads to a minor offense onto another person. Therefore, my opponent must explain why morning drinking is an offense onto another person. 3) Distinctions based on time are arbitrary and silly, as what occurs in the morning is not inherently distinct from what occurs in the evening. Therefore, my opponent must explain why his arguments apply to the mornings, but not to the evenings. Following this premise, I argued a few things: - Morning prohibition is silly. >Beyond this, we are given no reason to believe why this is the case. This statement then becomes an unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no analysis, facts, or warrants given to help it along. But silliness refers to something done without reason, to amusing consequences. My opponent, however, has validated this claim in his opening remarks. "This is going to be fun! Thanks ahead of time! :D" The only reason this debate should stand out as fun enough to be thankful for, is if it is based upon a silly subject. Therefore, despite his claims to the contrary, my opponent has conceded that morning prohibition is silly. I also argued, - Drinking tastes good. - Drinking loosens tensions. >While each of these could be construed as a good thing by themselves, it is obvious that they are absolutely non-unique to morning drinking. But the arguments do support that drinking is a good thing, and that the morning prohibition imposed by the rules of etiquette are undesirable without a greater reason. I also argued, - Isolating ones drunkness to evenings leads to a false perception of a separate "night life." >Spero's main contention here is that at night, irresponsible drinking takes place, causing a multitude of "social ills" to occur. The same problem found in the second argument reappear here. Spero assumes, once again, that this problem is something that is limited strictly to night-time drinking. But in most beer-drinking countries, such as Germany or Denmark, morning or early afternoon drinking does not cause the same social ills seen at night. >Anyone who has either drank excessively in the morning or who knows someone who has knows very well that this is not the case. The only people who drink in the mornings in the U.S. are either people who are naturally rude, or who cannot help themselves. This does not hold true for the relevant majority who abide by the rules of etiquette. Furthermore, >Beyond this, Spero assumes that individuals who drink at night have absolutely no ability to limit their drinking where people who drink in the day do. But people drink at night for different reasons than they would the morning. At night, they drink to celebrate that the day is over, and consequently, are prone to get excessively wild. However, as I've said, during the day people would drink because it tastes good and helps them to unwind. >Finally, Spero claims that drinking only at night ensures that people will believe that they have two different lives (one at night [presumably the drunk one] and one during the day [the sober one]). Once again, there is absolutely no reason given to believe that these roles can't be reversed OR that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing (this will be discussed in detail soon). One during the day, where they must be respectable. One at night, where they needn't be. This leads to less-silly rules being broken at night. Consequently, rules of etiquette should not be overly limited on the basis of the time of day. As to my opponent's arguments.... >First, and foremeost, it must be pointed out that Spero never gives us any reason to believe that drinking alcohol will be limited to the morning/early afternoon. This is, of course, one of the easiest ways into alcoholism. All of the negative repercussions of this disease are widely known (although if they need to be addressed, I will be more than willing to bring them up). But why would morning prohibition do anything more than needlessly enhance alcohol's mystique, and therefore, desireability? >Second, as mentioned above, Spero seems to be advocating that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing. Despite this, he/she never provides any reasons as to why this is the case. Let's, then, entertain the notion that having two different lives is, in fact, a good thing. It may be a good thing, if one weren't filled with the social ills alluded to before. >My final argument is that Spero provides no good reason to believe that drinking either at night or during the morning provides any sort of unique benefit to society. Sure, he/she contends that drinking at night causes more "social ills", but as explained above, drinking at ANY time causes these same problems to occur. But I have! It tastes good and calms nerves, both of which are beneficial to the individual. See above. >First->Spero has a hard (if not impossible) time substantiating any of his/her claims. There is no analysis or facts/figures that give us any reason to believe anything he/she says. It also becomes obvious that: First->My opponent has provided no reason for a specifically morning prohibition that cannot be provided to the evening as well. >Second->If Spero does provide some sort of analysis, it does not help to prove his/her point. He/she uses the most generic responses which are applicable to both night and day drinking. Second->My opponent provides no positive explanation of why anything he says results in rudeness. >Finally->Spero fails to address the "social ills" that drinking all throughout the day would cause (including alcoholism). Finally-> Neither does my opponent, who needs to find a social ill which applies to the morning.
7	85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00004-000	Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?	Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.
1	52024672-2019-04-18T13:52:01Z-00003-000	Should teachers get tenure?	Teachers should have guns in school I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.
32	28c76471-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00015-000	Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?	We don't just vote for ourselves The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.
3	df971154-2019-04-18T11:34:17Z-00001-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	Importance of trading with confidence There are many traders who are placing their trades and they are not making money. It is because they do not have the confidence in their strategy. If you want to make money in this industry, you have to improve your level of confidence. Most of the novice traders do not have the necessary confidence and they lost their money. If you want to be a successful trader, you should have the confidence that is needed to trade in this currency market. This article will tell you how a little ounce of confidence can take you a long way in your career in this industry. Those who are new might suffer from lack of confidence. Many new traders in the United Kingdom often say they are losing money even after following all the basic rules of investment. But do you really think basic rules of investment will help you to make a consistent profit? Unless you have extensive experience in the retail trading industry, you should consider demo trading. Demo trading account is the best way to learn currency trading. You can trade as long as you want and make mistake. Use this platform as your learning field. Note down the details of each trade and try to find your faults. Try to develop a key strategy so that you can make a profit in the long run. The expert traders also use demo accounts to fine tune their trading strategy. Unless you can make a consistent profit with the demo trading account you should never invest any real money. Once you feel confident with your trading strategy, you should open an online trading account with a reputed broker and start trading the live asset with confident. Without confidence, you will always question your strategy One of the reason confidences is needed because if you do not have this, you will always question your strategy. Novice traders trade in groups because they are not confident. They do not have any belief in themselves and they think the other traders are right. This kind of thinking cost them money and they lost the trades. If you want to win in this industry, you will have to always develop your confidence. How to develop confidence in a market that you do not know anything about? This is the question that many people are having on their mind. Most of the people do not have any idea on this market and they may think how they can be developing confidence if they do not know anything about this market. It is not that right and you only need to practice your strategy to become confident in this currency industry. If you are trying to make a profit based on your assumptions, there will be always some clouds in your decisions. You may try to get help or you may want to follow the paid signals. This does not happen when you are confident. You know what you are doing is right and it will give you money. The most important thing in this career is to believe in you. You may not know but you can be built for this market. Currency trading is not hard and many people have made their fortune w in this industry. The professional traders did not have any idea about this market. They practiced and they believed in their strategy and they became successful. If your trade goes wrong, do not lose confidence Not all the trades will make profits and there is nothing to lose hope. This is common and you should not lose confidence. If you have placed your strategy and the market trend changes, do not lose the confidence. The successful traders also lose money but the secret of their trading is they are confident in their trades. If you are not confident, you will try one strategy and another strategy and you will not get the success.
50	3ee50742-2019-04-18T17:49:57Z-00003-000	Should everyone get a universal basic income?	America should become a Social Democracy First, I'll address my opponents arguments. 1. Freedom My opponent was missing the point. I wasn't saying that social democracies would have ended slavery any faster. All I was pointing out was that Thomas Paine, a man who arguably was one of our founding fathers, was ahead of his time. Not only did he believe in civil liberties, not only did he believe in more liberty (he wanted to abolish slavery) but he also believed that financial security was conducive, rather than detrimental to liberty. I was also pointing out that Paine's dream for America had many elements of a social democracy. 2. Happiness and money My opponent makes some interesting concessions and claims. First, he essentially concedes that Denmark and Canada could be societal and economic models. Then he claims that they aren't socially democratic. Both countries are more socially democratic than we are because they both have universal healthcare. But that's not all. Denmark's Prime Minister is Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and she's a Social Democrat. Moreover, the Social Democrats have held power for most of the previous century. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Denmark) Secondly, the official website of Denmark has this to say about its welfare state: The basic principle of the Danish welfare system, often referred to as the Scandinavian welfare model, is that all citizens have equal rights to social security. Within the Danish welfare system, a number of services are available to citizens, free of charge. This means that for instance the Danish health and educational systems are free. The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, and as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world. http://denmark.dk... My opponent points out that the Danes have deregulated their economy, in recent years. One example of this deregulation is flexicurity. Denmark had regulations which made it harder for businesses to hire and fire people. Denmark got rid of those regulations, that's the flexi part in flexisecurity. But what was the security? While they made it easier to fire people, they also strengthened unemployment benefits. Denmark is 1st in social mobility. Norway Norway has been politically dominated by it's Labour Party for years. Labour is a socially democratic party. Norway has universal healthcare, and we don't. Norway is 1st in GDP per capita. New Zealand: Not only does New Zealand have universal healthcare, social security, family benefits and benefits for single parents, but they also have state owned housing which helps many people who might otherwise be homeless. We should be taking notes. "Citing Europe and calling them social democracies is faulty, the only true social democracy in Europe would be Sweden. Most of Europe is embracing free market reforms, not socialistic/democratic ones. They are cutting safety nets, cutting taxes, and decreasing regulation while increasing free trade [5]. " Again, these countries have many features of social democracy which we simply don't have. They might be cutting taxes, and benefits, but their taxes are stil higher, and their benefits are still more generous. Furthermore, I don't mind defending Sweden, which is far from a failure. The country collapsing in the Eurozone is Greece, and that's because they tried socialism with low taxes. That wasn't going to work. Sweden has free health care, free dental care, benefits for families with children, an educational allowance which allows every kid to either get a higher education, or go to vocational school, without getting into debt. They also have Social Security, and Elderly care.http://www.sweden.se... The list goes on and on. Their top marginal tax rate is 60%, and people are still happy. Stefan Perrson lives in Sweden, pays that rate, and he's still the 17th richest man in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org...(magnate) Social Mobility is hgher in Sweden than it is in America. Their wealth is also more evenly distributed. While the top 20% of Americans have 8 times more money than the bottom 20% of Americans, the top 20% of Swedes have 4 times more than the bottom 20% of Swedes. The smaller gap between rich and poor, and the security of the Swedish welfare state, creates socioeconomic conditons which allow for more social mobility. Sweden is 6th in social mobility, America is 10th. The already rich may not be able to get as rich, but poor and middle class Swedes have a better chance of getting wealthy. Sweden is also the 5th happiest country in the world, and we're 10th. Note that the Swedes are happier than we are, even though they have very little sunlight for half the year. Many opponents of social democracy claim that social democratic reforms reduce innovation and hurt the economy. My opponent used several Cato and Heritage foundation studies to make this point. Yet Stockholm, Sweden, is a major hub for European startups. If anything, financial security helps foster innovation because poor people have more time and money to come up with the next big idea. Another false assumption is that social democracy can't be payed for. When the recession began, Sweden was in a strong fiscal position, with a budget surplus. Their surplus allowed them to spend more money, and this helped Sweden counter the recession. Sweden and Canada and Germany (Germany and Canada also have some features of social democracy including universal health care) were able to recover far faster than the U.S. My opponent argues that regulations started the recession. The truth is that 30 years of deregulatory policies allowed Wall Street to run wild. My opponent mentions the housing bubble. This happened because there wasn't proper oversight over predatory lending. Greedy overspeculation caused the recession. Paul Krugman is a noble laureate in economics, and he explained this in an interview. Here is the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com... My opponent also argues that tax policies hurt entrepreneurial growth. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had very little, if any trickle down effect. While most economic growth went to the top, lower and middle income wages have stagnated even as inflation decreased their buying power. These tax cuts have caused greater socioeconomic inequity, which in turn, helped foster economic instability. As I pointed out in round 1, economic inequality reduces consumption and it hurts the economy, and economic instability. This is one of the main causes of boom and bust. My opponent has not refuted this contention. Furthermore, my opponent did mention the postwar boom. He didn't mention the fact that unions were very strong, and he didn't mention the fact that in the 1950s, our top marginal tax rate was 91%! Stronger unions and higher income taxes, and yes, stronger regulations than we have today, (Glass Steagle, for instance, was still in place) all contributed to 3 things: 1. Less disparity between rich and poor 2. A stronger middle class 3. economic stability. In fact, from 1945-1981, tax rates never went below 70%. Furthermore, 1945-1971 was a time when our middle class was strongest, and it was also our longest period of economic stability in history. Compare that to the Reagan, and Bush presidencies. A recession in 1983, a recession in 1987, an economy which was bad enough in 1992 for Clinton to win by saying, "It's the economy stupid." One can also recall that Bush jr., who also cut taxes and regulations, was President when our current recession began. Conclusion: Social Democracy will make our society more fair, more free, more happy, and more prosperous.
46	41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00009-000	Should net neutrality be restored?	Net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.
13	4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00001-000	Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?	Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Nuclear and fossil fuels are not a huge contributor to c02 and greenhouse gases, as originally thought by most people. Humans and the use of fossil fuels contribute a very, very small amount of carbon compared to natural causes of carbon. All carbon produced by humans in any way, shape or form is only 29 giga tons a year. These emissions are tiny compared to the 750 giga tons produced by natural causes each year(1). Carbon emissions are inevitable and will happen regardless of our contributions at the same speed. Renewable energies produce carbon emissions as well. in fact, a single running wind turbine can create more c02 emissions than that of the most efficient gas turbines. Finally, I believe that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are far more superior and efficient than renewable energies such as wind and solar power. (1) http://www.skepticalscience.com... (2) http://www.theguardian.com...
35	d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00015-000	Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?	Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Games put violence in hands of players, unlike other speech.
15	908f4e4f-2019-04-18T18:40:43Z-00008-000	Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?	animal testing Millions of animals are tortured everyday because of cosmetic companies. Their legs and other bones are broken to test painkillers.. etc... it should be illegal for cosmetic companies to test on animals. Alot of great companies don't test on animals, so it shows you there is another way. Please help stop animal testing.
41	4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00001-000	Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?	The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Now that we near the debate"s end, I present my summary. New revenue sources will be unavailable. I have already addressed this while my opponent was only able to show existing revenue sources. These sources have not been able to grow at a rate that has reduced the debt in the last 60 years. Thus the debt will grow at a rate that exceeds the growth of the economy. Existing zero cost funding sources will dry up The biggest source of zero cost funds is the excess funds from the Social Security Administration . Currently one third of the deficit is covered by these funds. This source will exhaust in 2033. The treasury will then have to sell 50% more bonds to compensate for the loss. Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. An inspection of the table shown earlier will show that the US government is not even paying the full interest on the debt. In 2016 the US government paid $242 billion in debt service even while the interest charge alone was $432 billion. Thus nearly half the cost was charged to future budgets. This alone may make investing in government bonds less attractive. Investors stop buying bonds. As the funding situation becomes more apparent, investors will look elsewhere for investing. The government would have to pay a higher interest to attract sufficient dollars to pay the deficit. This increases the cost of debt service, even while we are not even paying full cost today. Thus the deficit becomes a growing problem. THe government could print more dollars, but that just reduces the value of the dollar, which will result in the bonds being even less attractive as an investment. Default As investors demand repayment on their bonds, the stress on the system will become unbearable. The government would be forced to reduce governmental services so money could be redirected to debt payments. This could be a short term "reorganization" known as a "default" Bankruptcy As the short term default bleeds the system further and further, the result is bankruptcy. When the government pays out more than it gets in, it has to borrow When it borrows, it first uses Social Security Administration excess funds When that excess disappears it must sell more and more bonds When it sells more and more bonds, the debt service increases When the debt service increases the government must borrow more money" When it borrows more and more it becomes an endless spiral When it becomes an endless spiral, it leads to bankruptcy See "The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303" . http://www.afn.org... My argument is that the only way to reduce the threat of bankruptcy is to reduce the debt. The debt is reduced by eliminating the deficit. THe deficit is eliminated by a fiscally responsible Congress. It was apparent that there were numerous misunderstandings by Con that clouded his reasoning. Con seems to think that if the bankruptcy doesn"t happen in his lifetime, then it doesn"t matter. That is exactly the kind of reasoning the government uses, and that is why it is a problem. Quote by Con. . " It (sic) not happening right now nor anytime in the near future. So, why does it matter? " It matters because bankruptcy will impact basic governmental functions. Quote by Con. "You brought up the nation faults five different times. Okay that's true. And what happened to the United States since then? Oh they just grow to the most powerful nation on the planet. So tell me why does this matter? " It matters because so much of the debt is now held by foreign entities. Quote by Con. " China and japan the biggest dept ( Sic) we have is with them," Quote by Con. "every time the market had a crash. ,,,it will always go back up. " This faith based assertion has little basis in fact when dealing with bankruptcy. Be positive.
33	987b7cea-2019-04-19T12:47:29Z-00029-000	Should people become vegetarian?	People are becoming less private People are becoming more open about who they are and the lives they wish to live. This is a great move away from the old British attitude of the stiff upper lip. People are becoming more willing to let people know when they are upset, excited or angry. People are revealing more and more of themselves and their lives. The internet is a medium which allows them to do this and people are using it to release their inhibitions. Things they feel they cannot tell people face to face they are spreading on the internet. This is what people want to do; privacy is becoming less and less important to our modern nation.
12	1ff5359b-2019-04-18T15:06:14Z-00004-000	Should birth control pills be available over the counter?	Abortion is wrong and bad Introduction: I completely agree with Lydia about the labeling, I understand and unfalteringly respect what she says. Rebuttal of Argument 1: In this argument Lydia uses the usual idea that the fetus is a human being, "A form of human life, whether born, unborn, fetus, or not fetus, is still an individual human" and that, "he has equal rights, and he should be given a chance…" The average number of sperm, or spermatozoa, that are expelled in one male ejaculation, is 500 million. Each of these sperms is an individual life, each and every one has the chance to be born, "A form of human life, whether born, unborn… still an individual human. This is because size and/or stages in the terms of life are not accountable for whether the life form gets to live." If we use the logic that Lydia proposed, then each and every one of these unborn, living sperm should have equal rights, and each and every unborn human "deserves to live his life just like you or me or anyone does," If Lydia's idea is to be preserved and used, it cannot be abandoned or else this logic is a fallacy, and Lydia would be a hypocrite. In order for Lydia to not be a hypocrite, Lydia would have to carry out her logic, and surgically remove one sperm, and directly insert that into the female egg, for every single couple ever that wants to have a child, in order for this logic to prevail. To abstain from murdering innocent human lives. Something is described as being something, if characteristics of that something match the characteristics of that other something. If I were to remove a human heart from a human body, could that something be described as human? Certainly not! Its cells still have human DNA, but holds little characteristics that a human possesses. If I were to remove a fetus from a pregnant mother, should this be described as human? Maybe twenty or so weeks in it could, but before that it does not. It does not have the characteristics that a human has at that point, so should not be described as human. It is not logical to say something is another thing, if it possesses little characteristics of thing. After this point, and the characteristics are met that render it a human, then it is a human. But this does not happen until far into the pregnancy, and personally, I do not believe that women should get pregnancies that far in. With these two rebuttals, I examined and showed what following through Lydia's theory would actually look like, and argued that fetuses should not be thought of as a human. Rebuttal of Argument 2: In the beginning of the second argument, my opponent brings up numerous statistics of abortion which cannot be argued since they are fact. Later on Lydia brings up quotes to show that 20 weeks into the pregnancy, the baby feels pain and doing an abortion could hurt the child. Lydia continues on the premise of this thought. Lydia establishes that the child can feel pain, yet some types of abortion processes can be done so the baby feels no pain. If they don't currently exist, they can be invented. This is not a valid argument. "A few of the most brutal--and common--versions of abortion are such as these:" Lydia then lists two different abortion techniques that are brutal. I would be fine with this except that she claimed that these were common, which they are not. Using the argument that some techniques of abortion can cause pain to the child, so abortion is bad, is not a valid argument, for it doesn't account for techniques that don't cause pain to the child. Saying that some dogs are bad, does not mean that all dogs are bad, similarly saying that some abortions are bad, doesn't mean they are all bad. "This is completely false because of the potential and obvious life signs that the fetus/being shows" This adds to what I said in my first rebuttal, about the sperms. Rebuttal of Argument 3: In this argument, Lydia basically sites research about how abortions can cause cancer and how they are deadly. I will rebut this by showing how not having an abortion, and giving birth to a child is just as dangerous, if not more, than an abortion. "Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth." (WHO Maternal mortality) Women giving birth usually die of severe bleeding usually after childbirth, infections, high blood pressure during pregnancy, or complications from delivery. Mortality is also much higher in teen pregnancies. "From 1990 to 2013, the global maternal mortality ratio declined by 45 per cent – from 380 deaths to 210 deaths per 100,000 live births, according to UN inter-agency estimates." (UNICEF) Although the mortality rate is slowly decreasing, not having an abortion, and giving birth is equally dangerous. Abortions save mother's lives. Counter Rebuttal 1: "Women DO have the right to have full control of their bodies, but they also have full control of their offsprings' bodies/lives." Exactly, mother's should have control of their offspring, and should choose to do what they want with them, according to you. "But we must ask, if the unborn baby could communicate and we would give it the choice to live or not, what do you think he would choose? The whole flaw in abortion is that your taking away the human beings right to living, and that fact cannot be escaped." The baby might choose not to live, you cannot make unsubstantiated assumptions like this. Counter Rebuttal 2/3: "Where are the sources? There are options available besides killing the children." My sources were in the comments and keeping the child, enduring the dangers of birth, and then give the child away to foster care where it takes up tax payer dollars, lives on welfare, and is most likely to be a criminal and danger to society. Conclusion: There was no way possible for me to post a response, I don't think that I should be penalized for something that is not my fault. I have also not forfeited a round, I just couldn't write a response, I am sorry, but personal matters sometimes interfere with debating. I look forward to the rest of the debate, good luck to you Lydia! Sources: http://data.unicef.org... http://www.who.int...
3	41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00013-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	Carbon emissions trading US cap-and-trade in sulfur dioxide was successful
1	197beaca-2019-04-18T11:28:59Z-00001-000	Should teachers get tenure?	Teachers should be armed with guns. Teachers should not be able to carry weapons because one teacher could dislike another teacher or a student and kill them. We trust our teachers enough, but we should not trust anyone with kids that have a gun (other than law workers) no matter if is a teacher who we trust protecting kids while we are at school. Me for one would absolutely hate some teachers having a gun. Not like you know her but Ms. Sheldon is an absolutely horrible teacher that knows nothing about grammar (she said you can't start a sentence with to! What about "To be or Not to be?") anyway she hates almost everyone and she got fired but is working at the school until the end of the year, (coming soon) so she could go and shoot the principle or anybody who fired her. No teacher should have a gun unless it is a home-owner/renter or a law worker.
12	8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00002-000	Should birth control pills be available over the counter?	teens should beallowed to get birth control But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their "wise master".
1	302aacc2-2019-04-18T15:07:51Z-00003-000	Should teachers get tenure?	Should Computers replace Teachers Computers cannot create a culture of excellence and push students to meet high expectations. Computers cannot visit students' homes to get to know their families and engage them in their progress. Computers cannot raise money and organize college visits to show students who have never left their communities what they're working toward. Technology is a tool, not a silver bullet. And like all tools, it can be helpful or harmful depending on how we use them. Rocketship Education, a high-performing charter network that serves low-income students in California, uses technology to enhance -- not replace -- the work that teachers are doing. Students spend up to two hours a day in a computer learning lab mastering basic math and reading skills through exercises and puzzles, freeing up teachers to spend their time on advanced skills and concepts. The schools invest the money they save through computer learning back into teacher salaries and coaching. At Rocketship, technology strengthens the personal ties between students, parents and teachers that are the key to its success. Children growing up in poverty need all the support and nurturing from adults that they can get. If we want a real revolution in education, we should make an all-out effort to attract and keep our best people in our schools. Technology can be a powerful force in that effort when guided by leaders who understand what students and teachers need to do their best. You need to realize that technology is a tool not a person.
31	2cfef4b7-2019-04-18T18:42:38Z-00004-000	Is obesity a disease?	Christianity is a Disease I have decided that the layout for this debate is inefficient. I'm changing the layout, so from here on, I will simply ask my opponent to prove to me that the god of christianity exists.
26	ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000	Do standardized tests improve education?	Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or "standard" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of "standard score" which can help interpret how far a child"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. "They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular "cut-line" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to "assessment is powerful for improving teaching" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.
35	5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00001-000	Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?	Violent Video Games Hello and thank you for taking time to read this debate.For the purpose of clarification I will not state my intent to argue for the remainder of this debate. The Con will argue that the sale of violent video games to minors in the U.S. does not have a substantial effect on their actions and that there are other causes or reasons why young people commit violent acts.Here is my evidence.#1 - No connection between violence and games. Other causes like home life and and mental stability are the core.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester." As we can see per the evidence there have been numerous studies AND in fact the surgeon general telling us that the exposure to violence based on video games is a factor that leads to violence. Compare this to my opponents evidence which is unobtainable so we cannot even test the validity of the entire study. As this is my opponents argument it is the only argument I need to win to win this debate but I will go ahead and provide more evidence bellow.#2 - Violent video games are in fact core to the development of children and their decision making skills.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. "This quote is long but meaningful as it holds multiple reasons as to why children have to be exposed to violent video games. As explained, the article cites a district judge who explains why we have to protect the rights of children in exposing them to violence and thus the consequences of actions. They become as Posner writes "The ethical testing grounds." and so should be accessible to children. To back up this claim the article cites Posner who justifies this exposure with reference to the violent nursery rythmes and fairytales we already tell our children. Thus if you find even the slightest moral, ethical or logical justification for exposing children to violence you vote con.#3 - Video games aren't desensitizing.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat. In some circumstances, they seem to take pleasure wrestling and tousling with each other. In others, they might rip each other apart in mortal combat. Game designer and play theorist Eric Zimmerman describes the ways we understand play as distinctive from reality as entering the "magic circle." The same action — say, sweeping a floor — may take on different meanings in play (as in playing house) than in reality (housework). Play allows kids to express feelings and impulses that have to be carefully held in check in their real-world interactions. Media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims. Yet, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. "Despite what the pro tells you, video games aren't desensitizing. As the evidence above explains, video games aren't meant to stimulate real emotional responses and thus aren't meant to show that a kid is disturbed simply because he laughs at death in a simulation. In fact they act as a release to feelings that are normally oppressed in 'reality' culture today. This answers the pro's only claim to violence and is thus a reason to vote con.#4 - Studies that conclude that violence in video games lead to more violence in kids are biased.Staff of Science 2.0 Report on the findings of Professor Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex. [2]"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined." Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard."The evidence goes a long way to win the con's because it states that really any study provided by the pro has no real world statistics to backup the nature of the findings and thus can only be limited to the theory which is invalid until there is evidence to support it.#5 - If your claim is true then why has the rise of video game sales been accompanied by a drop in violent crimes by children?Quote from Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health [3]"It's clear that the 'big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy."This statement and evidence is pretty damning to the case of my opponent because it poses a logical question that simply can't be answered by studies that are supposedly in support of the pro. This is because, as stated by the very qualified authors of my evidence, there has been no increase in violence even though violent video games are hot sellers. Thus there can be no conclusion for the pro because there is simply no real world proof.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponent's response!My Evidence (No abstract mining here)[1] - http://www.pbs.org...[2] - http://www.science20.com...[3] "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games" by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, 2008.
3	364cb608-2019-04-18T16:28:55Z-00006-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	Best Trading card game. I accept and my favorite trading card game from my childhood that I will be debating will be Yu-Gi-Oh! the trading card game that was based on Egyptology such as the Egyptian gods using monsters that had special powers and were summoned through cards.
13	7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000	Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?	Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted. While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.
40	fc074141-2019-04-18T15:26:38Z-00003-000	Should the death penalty be allowed?	Death Penalty in Iowa Jared J 12 December 2014 Dead Wrong About the Death Penalty The Death Penalty, the ultimate punishment. But is it worth it? The death penalty was outlawed in Iowa in 1965. Now people think we should bring it back. Iowa should continue to not have the death penalty and use the alternative, life in prison. This is because it has some major flaws. First and foremost death penalty states have higher murder rates. In 2013 the average death penalty state murder rate was a 4.4. While non-death penalty states murder rates where a 3.4. (DIPC 1). Since Iowa has a murder rate of only 1.4 there is no reason to switch. Also death penalty states make up 75% of the top 25 highest murder rates in the country. Thus proving the death penalty does not lower murder rates. Murder rates are not the only thing the death penalty rises, court cases are also affected. Court cases that seek the death penalty cost more than those who do not. A Death Penalty Advisory Committee study shows that death penalty seeking cases cost on average $395,792 to the defense. While only $98,963 for non-death penalty seeking cases. Their fore death penalty seeking cases cost 4 times more than non-death penalty seeking cases. Definitely not worth the money. Overpriced court cases are not the only problem in the courtroom innocent lives are also at stake. The number of innocent lives put on death row is too high to be worth it. Since reinstatement in 1973 "at least 121 people have been released from death row". At the same time "over 982 people have been executed" Thus an 8 to 1 innocence rate. If your car broke down 1 of every 8 times you drove it you would no longer trust it and have it fixed. The death penalty needs fixing some may say that no executed person has ever been executed. But we have come to close in the past to let this happen in the future.(Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab 1) Iowa should continue to not have the death penalty. It does not lower murder rates; it raises court costs, and has a high chance of convicting innocent lives. The risks are not worth it let the death penalty stay dead. Work cited DPIC. "Murder Rates Nationally and By State." DPIC. N.p., 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .m. "Innocence (In Support of the Death Penalty)." Innocence (In Support of the Death Penalty). Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab, 2004. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. Report of the Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee (n.d.): n. pag. Report of the Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee. Judicial Council, 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. .
13	2b6bd5cb-2019-04-18T11:43:36Z-00000-000	Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?	Establishing a $15 per ton carbon tax that increases by 3.5% each year until capped at $80 per ton Let's talk about your first point, that carbon emissions will depend on several factors, and new cost-effective technologies may cut our carbon emissions. However, I am confused on why you are asserting this, as it is a point that favors my argument. If companies are already creating cost-effective innovations and switching to renewable energies, such as wind or photovoltaic, then why is there the need for a carbon tax? As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world"s total greenhouse gas emissions, which makes unilateral efforts" such as a domestic carbon tax"an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years. If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States. In fact, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist. Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil fuels more economically attractive. But contrary to what my opponent stated, the technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are decades away and extremely costly. Instead, the only real way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short run is to reduce energy use and economic output. Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient cars, but the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving, higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices. My opponent also chose to ignore the plethora of repercussions that establishing a carbon tax would generate. While he is correct when he says that it will force U.S. companies to find new ways to utilize energy, what he completely disregarded is that a carbon tax disproportionately targets the low-income in our communities. This is because low-income communities rely on cheap fossil fuels, to heat their homes, power their cars, and live their lives. But when we establish a carbon tax, what we do is we pass that on to the consumers, and that directly increases the amount of money that low-income families have to spend on energy. According to U.C. S. B. Malin Milinger, "reforms to discourage climate pollution hurt low-income Americans." And that is exactly what we saw in Ireland when it passed a carbon tax. In fact, gas and heating bills went up 5 to 10 percent, and it directly affected the poor in Ireland. According to a study done by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, households in the lowest income group pay as a percent of income more than twice what households in the 10% distribution pay. Hence, these low-income families who are already struggling to pay for cheap energy will be hit the hardest and left in the dust from a carbon tax. However, there is an alternative, and that alternative is dividends, where the money is recycled back into the government. But that is something that is not addressed in this tax. Second, I would like to explain again why outsourcing hurts the U.S. Now, you argued in your second rebuttal that if a large company were to remain in a country without a carbon tax, it would greatly benefit the consumers in these countries. But you fail to recognize that while this consumer in another country is reaping cheaper goods and services, our economy, as well as millions of jobs, would suffer and be lost. This is true because when fossil fuel companies have to pay higher taxes, they end up letting go many workers. While the clean energy industry creates many jobs, this is offset by the amount of unemployment that would be created during the transition to renewable energy sources. Stanford professor Mark Jacobson wrote a recent study that found of the 2.5 million jobs added by using 100% renewables, 3.9 million were lost. Clearly, while a new workforce would emerge, it would greatly impact current jobs in the United States. The business that can move to renewable energy will move to renewable energy, like you said, but will take years to build up to levels where they can hire thousands of people for new positions. Additionally, the economy would plummet due to the loss of jobs and the decreased competitiveness of America's global exports. Because a carbon tax leads to increases in prices for energy goods and services, it reduces demand, thus stultifying the economy. You requested some type of statistic to display how the economy would be affected, but a statistic is not necessary here when knowing that a carbon tax would reduce American jobs and decrease global competitiveness because that is going to smash our economy.
2	86c4374a-2019-04-18T12:17:10Z-00005-000	Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?	Microagressions and safe spaces First off, the general definition of a microagression is "the casual degradation of any marginalized group". This leads to many questions and claims about free speech and what we have the right to do. Claims: 1. Microaggressions and political correctness is far overdone if a real issue at all. 2. Not only do we as citizens and people within a democracy have the right to share out opinions, but also the duty to share them as differing views will strengthen the goals of a society and a nation. 3. Calling something a microagression and claiming that it shouldn't be said is a violation of the 1st amendment because it limits the freedom of speech of others. If something as small as saying "God bless" can be offensive, and therefore a microagression, our society has become too "politically correct" and doesn't value freedom of speech. Please see the following videos for explanation of my argument.
7	8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000	Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?	In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with "summary offences" and "indictable offences". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered "correction" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too "untrustworthy" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: "Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders." (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons "should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define "ought" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be "obligated"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to "advise" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a "natural expectation" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the "logical consequence" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.
13	688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00002-000	Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?	We should stop using fossil fuels!!! Have you stopped using them? If not, you clearly do not believe your own foolishness. Then shut up.
10	70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000	Should any vaccines be required for children?	Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.
20	7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00004-000	Is drinking milk healthy for humans?	Chocolate milk is bad for your health Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)
1	5cfdd422-2019-04-18T12:19:47Z-00001-000	Should teachers get tenure?	Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired if the teacher is unable to commit to her students, then she should get fired. It's hurting the students education Andy they should find a better teacher that is sable and can be here ready to teach 98% of the time.
17	eec21427-2019-04-18T11:48:32Z-00001-000	Should recreational marijuana be legal?	Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America. As far as the risks go, which is pretty much the only thing that stops you from thinking recreational marijuana should be legalized, they shouldn't matter, since there is a risk to everything. For example, the risk to driving a car is that you could possibly get in a wreck and either injure yourself or even die. 1.3 million people die in car crashes a year. Does this mean we should ban driving? Of course not! Is addiction a problem with recreational marijuana? Well, did you know medicinal marijuana can also be addictive? Does this mean we should reject the legalization of medicinal marijuana? Of course not! Maybe you're right; maybe we shouldn't ban the smoking of cigarettes. But it still makes no sense to me as to why we shouldn't legalize the smoking of weed. http://www.narconon.org... To summarize my argument, legalizing recreational marijuana does have risks, but it also has benefits. Just because something has risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. And majority of America wants it to be legalized! Therefore, I see no reason why recreational marijuana shouldn't be legalized, and my opinion is the same as it was before this debate. http://thehill.com... This has been a good debate, Con, and I really enjoyed it. I"m not the best at debating, but I feel you have gave me a challenge that has improved my debating skills, so thank you. Good luck in the voting period!
27	6910d58f-2019-04-18T17:00:20Z-00000-000	Should more gun control laws be enacted?	Gun control laws I am disappointed that my opponent forfeited the previous round - I hope this reflects how much he feels about his arguments. May the best debator win, may the voting begin.
29	9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00005-000	Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?	Allow illegal immigrants amnesty. That means to just type "I accept" and maybe a short sentence on why you accept. That is ok though! I appreciate the enthusiasm and will enjoy debating this topic with you. Just informing you for next time you see a debate that says first round is acceptance. Now. What you said about illegal immigration is what most people think right away when defending illegal immigration. I will give you a list of reasons why making "refugees" as you call them, amnesty is completely wrong if you just think about it. First off, I would LOVE to say to all the poor and oppressed in the world "Come to America and live a better life! " The sad truth is that we cannot. The more illegal inmigrants that come to the Unites States and obtain a residency by the government keeps the cycle going. If foreign nations see that they can cross our border without getting caught and become a residence ten years later, then this creates a magnet effect. More will come. More will see the opportunity. The United States is a great place to live and that is why so many people are trying to come here. Secondly. This magnet effect will keep millions of immigrants crossing the borders which means millions more to care for, feed, and help. We will need to do all of these things because illegal immigrants who come here are most likely not millionaires. They are poor or oppressed victims. Like I said, I would LOVE TO help all the poor and vulnerable in the world! But if all of the world saw that we just let anyone across our borders, then what stops them from doing the same? We have to stop the cycle. Thirdly. We have legal immigration for a reason! So we can keep new hardworking Americans coming from different countries from all race, ethnicity, and religions. The more different the better! According to . http://www.dhs.gov... we had about 500,000 new immigrants come to the United States legally in 2013. This is great. We can keep America diverse and new by letting legal immigrants come. You said "I honestly see nothing wrong with immigration. They arnt't doing it illegally because there are specific instructions Congress has set up for refugees fleeing their homes. " This is incorrect. This is what the laws of the United States say about people fleeing their countries to come to the United States: "Immigrants can be classified as illegal for one of three reasons: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or violating the terms of legal entry. [57] Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[58]" This is from wikipedia that cites lines from the United States Constitution and laws. Go to the wiki page to see that they used sources to find this all out. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... It is in the "Legal Issues" section. To sum everything up I must say you made a good first attempt, but I need more than just emotional feelings for the poor and oppressed. We all wish we could help the world, but there must be a limit. We cannot care for everyone, that is a simple fact. Legal immigration still continues so there is no need to block down our borders from everyone. After all, we are all immigrants to the United States in the first place.
31	15f74a6f-2019-04-18T15:07:00Z-00004-000	Is obesity a disease?	Alcoholism is actually not a disease! To put in simple terms, Alcoholism is the compulsive addiction to alcohol. Addiction is a form of Chronic Disease. Therefore Alcohol is a disease. Sources: [copy and paste if links don't work] http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
1	7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00006-000	Should teachers get tenure?	why should teachers be armed Guns are dangerous and immature students will want to play with the gun because they think its cool so they might end up injuring themselves. Having teachers armed shows that violence and weaponary is okay and it sets a bad example for kids and kids can get scared and lose trust in their teachers if they have guns with them all the time. And if teachers prefer not to carry it around with them because kids are scared of them and they put it in something like a safe, if a bad guy goes into the classroom, the teacher cant just be like "Oh wait a second, let me get my gun out of the safe to shoot you first." Teachers are only supposed to educate, not go through training to get rid of bad guys. It's expensive for the training teachers will need to handle guns. Instead, schools should have a better security system or have special trained people to roam around the school to protect the students.
19	3138dd6d-2019-04-18T16:51:12Z-00004-000	Should gay marriage be legal?	Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: Legal/Civil Protection for LGBT Unions At the heart of the civil union debate lies the question: shall the state govern love? Until the 20th century, love and marriage were not necessarily bound to one another. Marriage was a financial, political, and social alliance between two families. Typically, a woman was viewed as property exchanged for status and/or money. Legitimacy was conferred on the progeny of marriage in respect to social or financial inheritance. The transaction of marriage promoted social stability. States endorsed, licensed, and even subsidized marriage. Love was a private matter of the heart. While the most admired marriages typically demonstrated a partnership of affection, love was not a requisite. Since sexual attraction was seldom a factor in the consideration of marriage, homosexuals were not exempt from the franchise of marriage.Feminism and the expansion of civil rights changed the nature of marriage over the past century. In most cultures, women are now citizens with property rights, divorce rights, the right of consent, and often even superior child custody rights. Along with this extension of franchise came radical change to the nature of marriage. Marriage was redefined as a partnership of equals drawn together by mutual sexual attraction, committed to a long-term companionship with flexible roles in the division of labor, contribution of wealth, child-raising, etc. The state recognized significant public benefit from this evolution in terms of increases to the labor pool, increases in household wealth, improved health and well-being within marriages. So the state continued the recognition and subsidization of marriage as an institution of love. [1]One problem with this new definition of marriage, however, is that homosexuals are excluded. Gays are now seen as interlopers in the institution of marriage. LGBT people who marry partners of opposite sex are considered dishonest and their marriages shams. [2] Homosexuality is often legitimate grounds for divorce. In spite of the arguments of traditionalists, the definition of marriage has changed over the last 100 years, in the process excluding this segment of society. In effect, the state found itself in the position of defining which sexual attractions to endorse and which to exclude.By way of correction, over the past 25 years some states have expanded the franchise to include homosexuals. Whether this expansion is defined as marriage or civil union (the distinction itself being the subject of much debate), state recognition of LGBT relationships offers significant public benefit.Religious Freedom For many forms of religious expression, the union of love is a religious sacrament. To the extent that a religious celebration does not impinge on the freedoms of other citizens, no state should prohibit the free exercise of religion. Likewise, the choice to endorse no religion is an important religious freedom. In fact, the religiosity of states strongly correlates to prejudice against homosexuals. In a secular state, no particular religious view should be given preference when it comes to defining marriage. Some religions won't support same-sex bonds, others will. The most fair approach is to factor out religion when crafting family law within a secular context. Egalitarian Benefits LGBT people are equal contributors to the culture, politics, and finances of society. One need only consider the contributions of famous LGBTs to virtually any well-remembered place or time to appreciate the inherent worth of LGBTs to society. Societies that jail or oppress their LGBT people are typically less well-remembered by history. State recognition offers civil protection. As science increasingly offers evidence to support the biological causation of homosexuality, the alienation of LGBT people from public franchise is increasingly viewed as discriminatory and unjust. State recognition of domestic partnerships goes a long way towards normalizing LGBTs as legitimate members of society. Health Benefits Disenfranchisement hurts LGBT people in tangible ways. Discrimination has been shown to cause psychological distress, social conflict, and poor health. [3] Couples outside of the formal bonds of wedlock have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. [4] Married people live longer, make and save more money, indulge less in risky behaviors, eat healthier, and have fewer mental health problems than unmarried people. [5] Decades of research have shown that marriage is one of the best preventions against early death. [6] Should any government have the power to fence out one segment of society from the circumstances that allow a longer life? Family Values The institutionalization of same-sex couples helps to foster the well-being of children by providing legitimized couples with various rights, benefits, and protections which can strengthen family and societal bonds. Although LGBT people reproduce at only about one-fifth of the rate of straight people, this still represents millions of children raised by same-sex couples. In the US, LGBT couples raising children are four times more likely than their straight counterparts to be raising an adopted child. Further, LGBT couples are six times more likely than straights to be raising foster children. [7] A society that encourages same-sex partnerships not only improves the fortunes of unwanted children, it also legitimizes the parental status of children raised by LGBT couples. Economic BenefitsThe legitimization of same-sex unions also provides substantial economic benefits. Weddings are big business so civil unions and gay marriages help to expand the market. States that offer civil ceremonies often enjoy increased tourism as couples and families travel from those places with no legitimate partnership. New York City estimated a $260 million windfall for that city in the first year after legalizing gay marriage. [8] Increasingly, employers endorse the advantages of recognizing gay couples, not only for the improved health and stability of employees, but also so that denied rights are not a factor for employees in business travel or relocation. [9] States that offer LGBT couples rights have an increased advantage over states that don't offer rights in the acquisition and maintenance of business ventures. Civil Benefits Most governments offer significant rights and subsidies to married heterosexual couples. In the US, a congressional study identified 1,138 Federal benefits exclusively available to married couples including hospital visitation and medical decision rights, bereavement and pension benefits, inheritance and custody rights, and substantial tax subsidies. [10] International Reputation Those countries that can boast of partnership rights for LGBT peoples are generally perceived as more free and more livable than countries that deny those rights. Look at the way recent disenfranchisements have injured the reputation of Russia in the months just before they host the Olympics, while at the same time Mandela's adoption of gay marriage enhanced his country's legacy. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.ucop.edu... [4] http://www.stateofourunions.org... [5] http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca...[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[7] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[8] http://www.bloomberg.com...[9] http://www.pbs.org...[10] http://www.marriageequality.org...
6	33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00000-000	Is a college education worth it?	The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no "averaging" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, "running back home." That hurts us all." Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree." Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are "learning to live on your own gradually and constructively." I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that "you're also getting an education," but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your "network," which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it.
4	bfc40ccd-2019-04-18T13:22:32Z-00004-000	Should corporal punishment be used in schools?	Corporal punishment (Caning) should be implemented in the legal system of America Greetings to my opponent and the audience reading this debate. Round 1 is reserved for acceptance and laying down the framework for discussion. I will be arguing that reformative and/or rehabilitative treatment is preferable to corporal punishment. The latter is an inferior crime deterrent, and promotes more problematic concepts of justice. Moreover, corporal punishment is not the only alternative to the status quo. I look forward to an interesting and thought provoking discussion with Pro. Thanks!
19	923392dd-2019-04-18T18:37:55Z-00001-000	Should gay marriage be legal?	Gay Marriage Should be Legal Thank you for your arguments and rebuttals. You are a formidable opponent and I am pleased to be debating with you. For purpose of this debate, I am going to concede and accept my opponent's definition of marriage as . Marriage - A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts. (Shift4101).==REFUTATION OF CON'S ARGUMENTS==State's Interest in Marriage?My opponent has brought up an excellent point, namely, "What is the State's interest in Marriage?" To answer this question, my opponent has supplied two possible reasons: (1) The state sees a special value within marriage; and (2) The State honors the tradition of religion. I will concede that these are possible reasons; however, I would like to bring up my own reasons. Linette Scott, the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the CA Department of Public Health, has indicated that the state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriages. For example, marriage helps to: (1) facilitate public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units; (2) Develop a realm of liberty and free decision making by spouces; and (3) Create stable households. [1] All of these purposes apply in heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples. This will become important later in the debate. The APA says: "research shows that same-sex coupels are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides them many important benefits." [2] [emphasis mine]. To summarize: same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated. So to conclude, the state has many interests in marriage, not just religious or special values like my opponent would like for you to believe.Now, I would like to refute my opponent's two possible causes for state's interest in marriage and refute them to show how they have no baring in the result of this debate.1) Same-sex marriage violates the first amendment.Okay, so what is the first amendment? The first amendment sates: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [3] Hence, that has NOTHING to do with marriage, nor does it say that SSM would violate this amendment.2) Special value.Before you make this claim, you need to define what a special value is. Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. Moreover, based upon my opponent's logic, marriage should be denied to couples who are sterile or have no desire for children. \| CONCLUSION \|I have shown that there are more than just 2 reasons for federal marriage, hence refuting my opponent's claims. Furthermore, I have re-affirmed that SSM should be legal, just upon the interest in marriage. Anyway, I shall now deal with defending my own arguments.==DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS==Contention 1: Harm My opponent completely drops this argument. When I mean "harm", I refer to physical, mental, or moral injury. My opponent says "Due to the nature of sodomy, both consenting partners are physically harmed during sexual interactions in a homosexual relationship." Please prove this as I have not had any physical injury during any homosexual experience. "Does it emotionally harm anyone? By legalizing gay marriage the whole Christian community in America, among other religious communities, would be distraught." I'm sorry, but my opponent still has provided no evidence for his claim. Moreover, this is a secular not a religious society. Why should we let religion dictate the rights of the peple to people who don't even believe in religion X? A person's history and ability are incredibly less obvious than his/her sexual orientation when applying for a marriage license. To examine each couple, heterosexual or homosexual, for defects such as infertility or a history of violence would be both dehumanizing and expensive. In the current system the benefits of recognized, generally-good marriages exceedingly outweigh the disadvantages of a handful of poor marriages. In other words, the state can only practically recognize marriage by the type of acts that come with marriage, such as child rearing and raising; rather than the actual, varying effects that come with any-given marriage. Even if we allow same sex marriage, pimps, pedophiles, arsonists, etc will still be able to get married.--Shift4101 this is completely irrelevant to the debate. Contention 2: The 14th AmendmentAgain, completely irrelevant to what my opponent is saying. I am well aware that "no man can marry another man", which is why I am arguing that it should be legal! Equal protection is relevant. There are 1,000+ rights denied, which is completely dropped. "They can marry anyone they like, so as long as they are a member of the opposite sex so as long as they are a member of the opposite sex so procreative in type action may take place." This is irrelevant as procreation is not important in determining who can marry whom. In Turner v. Stafley, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right and marriage is an expression of emotional support and commitment." [4] Hence, we see that procreation is not involved with determining marital rights. Contention 3: Benefits C1.1: Economics "Even if recognizing gay marriage called for $30 billion in revenue, it would still absolutely pervert the reason why the state honors marriage." Firstly, who decides what "perversion" is? Secondly, I have already refuted the claim by providing alternate reasons for state recognized marriage. "What's stopping the government from legalizing contract killing, sale of any and all kinds of drugs, or prostitution?" Respectfully, please stay on topic. I am for prostitution and drug sale of all kinds, but that is not what we are debating. As for the contract killing, please see contention 1. C1.2: Children Legalization of same-sex marriage can provide for better stability with the legal and financial benefits that come with legalization of marriage. Hence, this is called the "utility factor." I have already shown how couples of the same-sex are just as capable of raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. However, if they were able to be legally married, they would be better able to provide a more stable family. What you want to do is compare 1 to 100, when a few homosexual families are not good; you want to abolish all homosexuals from having children. Instead of providing a loving home for children, my opponent would rather have children suffer in an orphanage simply because the potential family is gay. Over ½ million children are in foster care and 100,000 are awaiting adoption [5], should children be deprived of the right to a loving family simple because the parents are gay? I want to thank you for your opening round and for your excellent arguments. I look forward to your response. Thanks. References 1. Walker, Vaughn R. "Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document70." AFER, 4 Aug. 2010. http://www.afer.org... p. 67.2. The American Psychological Association. "APA Praises Prop 8 Decision as Victory for Science, Human Dignity." http://www.apa.org...3. US Constitution: 1st Amendment. http://www.usconstitution.net... 4. ThinkProgress2. "Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace." YouTube. (Link in comments). 5. http://www.inthelifetv.org...
3	92e1cc41-2019-04-18T17:03:48Z-00007-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	Free Trade Is Superior to Protectionism Full ResolutionFree trade is superior to protectionism in terms of international trade. BoP is shared. It is pro's burden to prove the resolution, while it is con's burden to prove the opposite (that protectionism is superior to free trade). Definitions Free Trade: "The unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas. "[1]Protectionism: "Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention. "[2]Superior: "One that surpasses another in quality or merit. "[3]International Trade: "The exchange of goods and services between countries. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: . http://www.investopedia.com...[3]: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]: . http://www.investopedia.com...
34	8fd1f0f9-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00001-000	Are social networking sites good for our society?	Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. Seeing as my the first attack that my opponent made against my side was to point out the lack of information on my side, allow me to remedy that. Firstly my opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on social networking sites and does not directly cause nature deficit disorder. Well, according to the Stanford University of Medicine Study more than half of time spent on the internet is spent communicating i.e. social networking sites. Now taking that into consideration on average a student spends three hours daily on the internet it can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily. Now, while they are on these sites they are not out experiencing nature and so these sites are directly causing a deficit of nature experiences for youths. Therefore, social networking sites are directly causing nature deficit disorder. Secondly, my opponet says that there may have not even a nature deficit disorder however, Richard Louv (who spent 10 years travelling the United States, doing interviews, and collecting research to prove that this is happening) is not the only one who agrees that nature deficit disorder exists. Harvard professor E. O. Wison refers to something similar called "biophilia." He explains that humans have an innate connection to nature, however humans have been spending less time outside and more time indoors, doing technology related activities. In addition the Nature & Children Network agrees that this trend has been happening and while Richard Louv coined the term Nature Deficit Disorder, they agree that it is a real problem that is arising. Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist. Thirdly, my oppenet says that since I cannot prove a link then it should be your obligation to vote negative, however there is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature. This time spent away from nature is causing nature deficit disorder and the behavioral problems that it causes such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. Because social networking sites are pulling our youths and students away from the innate connection with nature they are causing nature deficit disorder. This being the case it is your obligation to then vote in affirmative bacuase social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Now to attack my opponets point he says that social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. However, when my opponet is saying this he is being unresolution. The topic that we are debating is Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. So even if social networking sites are allowing people to connect and have those kind of relationships it in no way affects whether or not social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Even if you don't believe that there is no denying that by cutting our youths off from nature and the innate connection that humans have had with nature since our hunter gather days, social networking sites are causing problems that follow after nature deficit disorder. Such as ADHD (since youths are now unable to get rid of excess engery due to sitting in front of a computer spending time on students begin to develop ADHD) which causes problems with students in school and around their peers and family stress (due to spending time on social networking sites relations with family members tends to be worse as said by Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation among Adolescents). It can be seen that social networking sites are causing problems to the mental health and development of our youths. And for the reasons stated here about how social networking sites cause nature deficit disorder please vote in affirmation.
2	e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00002-000	Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?	Safe Sex Education in Schools We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ...
39	47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00006-000	Should the federal minimum wage be increased?	The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
47	1733bebd-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00004-000	Is homework beneficial?	Homework Looking forward to a great debate!
21	2394fe8c-2019-04-19T12:48:02Z-00019-000	Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?	Some of the most important international issues relate to human rights, especially as the US is enga... Economic sanctions on China harm US-Sino relations. China will perceive sanctions as containment, which will shatter the relationship. The US-China relationship is critical to solving a host of international issues, including proliferation, terrorism, and above all, human rights. China is taking an increasingly responsible role in international affairs, as its status as a Permanent member of the UN Security Council demands. For example, it is the key to coping with the threat posed by North Korea, and is also in a position to make or break US policy with regard to Iran. Given the USA's global priorities, it cannot risk alienating China at this time.
44	4f3adbc7-2019-04-18T12:51:25Z-00002-000	Should election day be a national holiday?	Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.
42	ef8f2969-2019-04-18T17:29:45Z-00002-000	Should fighting be allowed in hockey?	Soccer is better then hockey Here are 7 reasons why hockey is better than soccer 1. Speed: Ice hockey is just plain faster than soccer. Some of the fastest skaters in the National Hockey League can almost reach 30 miles per hour. Compare that to the fastest soccer players at about 21 miles per hour. I haven't even mentioned the speed of the puck flying at the goalies at over 100 mph. Things just happen faster on the ice than the pitch. 2. Space: There is less space on the sheet of ice than a soccer field. Part of what annoys me about soccer is that much of the game happens at midfield. It is rare to see end to end action for any length of time in a soccer game, because the field is so large. In hockey action often is back and forth with slap shots flying and clutch saves being made. Plus the ice is enclosed by the boards and plexiglass, which makes stoppages in play fewer. 3. Scoring: Ice hockey simply has more shots on goal, which leads to more scoring than soccer. In a match in the 2010 World Cup, Honduras had just two shots on goal against Switzerland who had a mighty five. Not surprisingly this game ended in a 0-0 tie. Maybe I sound like a rube when I can't see the beauty in a 0-0 soccer game, but to me it is nap inducing. Now 0-0 games do happen in hockey, but at least the goalie had to break a sweat and make, at the very least, 15 saves. 4. Acting: Even the most ardent soccer fans have to admit that the guys that play the game are just plain bad actors. A guy barely gets touched and he hits the turf like he has been shot. Don't worry though because he will make an amazing recovery and be at full strength as soon as the ball is back in play. There is sometimes acting in hockey when a player dives, but a guy will only do that so much because he knows he will pay for it later. See number 5. 5. Fighting: Although it isn't my favorite part of hockey it has it's place. It is the way that hockey teams police one another. Referees can't catch everything that happens on the ice, but the players often do. Spear one of my guys and the ref misses it, you can be sure that you will be dropping the gloves with my team's goon. It is a kind of justice that works. Most of the fighting in soccer takes place in the stands between drunken hooligans, which have been a black eye on the beautiful game for a long time. 6. Time: Stoppage time in soccer is one of the oddest things to me about the game. Why in the world can't the clock be stopped when there is a break in the action? Instead we get an amount of time that is added on to the clock, before the final whistle blows. No one, except the referee, seems to know exactly how much time is left. When the clock hits 0.0 in hockey the game is over. This way everyone, including the fans, knows when the game will end. 7. Checking: I have saved the best reason for last, lots of contact. Checking is the biggest difference between hockey and soccer. There is something enjoyable about seeing a guy get legally crunched into the boards. In hockey you can't just finesse your way through the game. In soccer there is contact, but not enough for my liking. It could be that I an just a simple ugly American that likes to watch full contact sports, but if the choice is soccer or hockey, hockey wins every time.
47	b3cad6c7-2019-04-18T16:04:18Z-00004-000	Is homework beneficial?	Is homework necessary "When you are at home you are meant to relax not do homework." My opponent has said that when you are at home you relax and don't do homework. Well, let me ask my opponent, do you do chores at home? Do you study for an upcoming test? Doing work at home is what helps you get used to the work you are studying in school. To you, homework may seem pointless, but it helps increase your knowledge. For me, I do better working on an assignment at home rather than at school. Some kids are always talking and I can't do anything to make them stop! At home, I have time at home to work quietly in my room. Most kids don't want to work on their homework because they want to be texting on their phones or generally do nothing. Some kids may be up til 10 or 11 working on homework, and they complain how long it took the to finish. For me, when I get home I go straight to work on my homework or studies and finish up in a matter of a few hours! Then I have the rest of the evening for myself with no worries of work to get done before 10PM! And trust me, if you are upset about have homework, just wait until you get to high school, college even! Talk about homework almost EVERY night! Homework has been around for so long, it will never change. I do think some teachers give out homework just because, but other teachers, like my English teacher for example, actually gave our class homework to help increase our knowledge on vocabulary and worldly events. Homework is necessary, without it, children wouldn't get into the habits of working and seeing their work from school in another environment.
6	472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00002-000	Is a college education worth it?	A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called "Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like "tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.
37	b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00003-000	Is cell phone radiation safe?	cell phone use good or bad state your debate i say that phones are good because without them then what will we use to call an ambulance or use it for some sort of emergency
46	6345307-2019-04-18T11:53:59Z-00001-000	Should net neutrality be restored?	Net Neutrality Thanks to my opponent, WhiteFlame, for participating in this debate with me. I really enjoyed it! http://www.youtube.com...
7	bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00002-000	Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?	Felon Voting Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.
23	25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00002-000	Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?	physician assisted suicide should be legalized "This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. "pulling the plug". (http://depts.washington.edu...) "just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other." Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.
44	9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00006-000	Should election day be a national holiday?	Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.
7	d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00005-000	Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?	Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation "If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. "America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. "So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting "According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn"t limit freedom of speech. "Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens " or nearly one in 13 African-American adults " are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election." Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.
17	6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00006-000	Should recreational marijuana be legal?	Marijuana should be legal Evidently, I will begin by asserting the facts that explain why I believe it should not be legalized. Marijuana is comparable to tobacco, which we all know has downsides. [1] Studies have shows that marijuana smokers are exposed to more smoke than cigarette smokers. This exposes them to an larger amount of carbon dioxide and tar, which increases the risks of a range of health problems including respiratory tract infections, bronchitis and lung cancer. [1] Not only that, according to drugfree. org, "{s}moking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke. "[2] "The Guardian {also} reported July 31 that researchers at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand found that the deep drags taken by marijuana users, along with their penchant for holding smoke in before exhaling, can cause problems like obstructed airways and hyperinflation of the lungs. The lack of filters on marijuana joints also contributes to lung problems. "[2] As this is only round two, I shall await round three to give the rest of my reasoning to not legalizing recreational marijuana and my rebuttals against your arguments. I look forward to seeing your reasoning and arguments for why you believe recreational marijuana should be made legal. [1]. http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org...... [2]. http://www.drugfree.org......
3	61376490-2019-04-18T18:22:03Z-00001-000	Should insider trading be allowed?	9/11 must have been assisted by the US government There will be no winner in this debate simply because no matter what 2,973 innocent Americans lost their lives....... On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case. Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently fortified mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia. The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9/11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and homeland security got the attention. FACTS ABOUT 9/11:(1)Fire has never prior to or after 9/11 caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition. (2)The WTC steel which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws. (3)Whenever contact is lost with any airplane fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception. (4)The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well publicized classroom photo op long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target. (5)Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11. (6)There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft top military officers and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly. (7)In September of 2000 a group of neocon hawks many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." (8)Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well according to the BBC and the Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases as reported in Newsweek and other sources. (9)The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week. (10)"The Jersey Girls" four 9/11 widows finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity. There are hundreds of additional facts that contradict the official story of 9/11. It is time for a truly independent investigation that addresses all the questions asked by the citizens.Conclusion:I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see the evidence shown in this debate clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We need a real investigation domestic or international one and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.The facts speak for themselves...............

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.