query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
48 | ab1cb41f-2019-04-18T20:02:53Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19. You say: "This debate is whether or not the United States Federal Government should lower the drinking age requirement to 19." And the fact of the matter is that the federal government lacks the authority to do this. Read the Constitution. The 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to set a national drinking age is NOT delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and thereby, as per the 10th amendment, IT IS RESERVED TO THE STATES. As you state in your OWN WORDS -- "The debate is whether or not THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should lower the drinking age requirement to 19." And the answer is, NO. It does not have the authority, and to do so would be an act outside of its authority. You are making an argument for an unlimited government that does not have to obey its own laws. You are making an argument for dictatorship, for if the government is not bound by its own laws, then it is completely unrestricted. The power to set the drinking age is the power to suspend elections, torture citizens, and ban free speech -- none of those powers are granted in the Constitution, but if the government is allowed to go beyond its constitutional bounds in one case, what is to stop it from doing so in other cases? You have presented no logical reasons why the drinking age has to be national, or why that age should be 19, instead of 18. YOU ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT SOLDIERS WHO RISK THEIR LIVES SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY A BEER, even if their state says they should. You have invented an imaginary problem of "cross-state drinking," when there are various laws that differ from state to state, and the drinking age is different in Mexico and Canada, where much of the country borders. Although there may be some "problems" associated with border-cross drinking, you completely overstate them to justify your cause. And besides, the argument for centralization of all laws in order to avoid any "friction" is the argument for a one-world government and dictatorship -- no more township hall meetings, the World Government Politburo makes the "universal zoning laws" now! The laws of a community should reflect the community's values (while respecting the Constitution) -- there is no need for every law to be the same in South Dakota and New York City (and Tokyo and South Africa, for that matter). Here is why I feel I've won this argument: 1. I've answered the question, "Should the federal government set a drinking age of 19?" My answer is NO, it lacks the authority. 2. I have shown your age of 19 to be arbitrary and oppressive, even if there were to be a national drinking age. Obviously, people who are old enough to serve in the military are old enough to drink a beer. 3. I have demonstrated that there's no reason for there to be one drinking age. There wasn't just one drinking age until 1988. Were all the years prior to 1988 as horrible as you indicate a future with different drinking ages would be? Thank you for the lively debate. Good luck. |
8 | 1eb8b86d-2019-04-18T16:50:10Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Making abortion legal does not decrease abortion related deaths due to "backdoor" abortions. Rules:This is a simple topic, so I will make this only two rounds. The first is acceptance and stating your opinion, the second will be for rebuttals. Then voting begins. Opinion: Making abortion legal does not prevent abortion related deaths caused by "backroom" or self inflicted abortions. One of the more popular arguments for legal abortion is that if abortion were illegal, women would perform the abortion on themselves or by visiting an illegal "backroom" abortion clinic and seriously hurting themselves. If abortion were legal it would be safer for women and if it were illegal it would lead to many more deaths. This simply is not true as the evidence proves that there is no correlation between enacting legal abortion laws and the decline of deaths caused by abortions. By the time Roe V. Wade was enacted abortion related deaths reported by the US CDC were on a steep decline for a decade. By Roe V. Wade abortion related deaths decreased by 250 million. This proves that the decrease of abortion related deaths has little to do with legal abortions. Citations:http://www.justfacts.com... |
39 | b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00002-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase "overall costs" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the "overall costs," and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a "negative ripple through the economy," I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in "overall costs" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby) |
4 | 6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment in schools Good luck, Lordknukle.*******Why shouldn't it be legal?Trust IssuesCorporal punishment in school facilities involves the hitting/beating of a student if they have disobeyed class room or school rules. If corporal punishment were to be implemented as a form of disciplinary action, there is no doubt that students would cease to disobey rules. However, this method can and will severely damage a student's trust with their teachers. As a result of this, the student loses that connection with their teacher to the point where they can't go to them a source of comfort. For example: James, 13 years old, has continuously interrupted the teacher with his distracting behavior. As punishment the teacher hits James in the face and is sent back to his seat. Because this damages their teacher-student relationship, the student will most likely avoid using that teacher as a source of comfort for other issues he may be having (bullying, grades, etc).Family/peer issuesI believe that is either extremely disobedient in class or has bad grades has either or both of these: Abuse/neglect at home Bullying inside and outside of school At home: Lets refer to the year 2006. This year, 61% (or 1.25M) children were victims of some form of neglect. These include not only physical, but mental, educational, emotional, and even sexual (http://pediatrics.about.com...). Neglect and abuse at home has a tremendous effect on a child, and to prove this, please take the time to read some of these stories: http://www.forthechild.org... For more statistics: http://www.childhelp.org... These children (mostly young) were all subject to some form of abuse. I'd like to point out one girl's story: Judy: This young girl (age 10) was moved to 20 different foster homes. Her crazed step father had sexually and physically abused her for many years. As a result she threatened to commit suicide in a school bathroom (no relativity). Take Judy's story and add the factor of corporal punishment in school. This would only add to here extremely bad situation and would have most likely ended up worse than it did.Bullying: http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org.... This link provides statistics on bullying. Feel free to scroll through. There is no doubt that students in fear of any form of bullying would not want to be beaten by their teacher for disobedience because: 1. Teachers and school faculty are the "bully police", so to speak. If they are physically punishing their students, the victims of bullying are less likely to go to those people for assistance. 2. Along with bullying, corporal punishment can cause the student to suffer from a depressive state of mind, resulting in possibly lack of loyalty and decline in curricular performance. Lesson learned...?What does corporal punishment in schools (and everywhere for that matter) accomplish? As I've said before, it is used to gain the expected behavior of the target. However, if this does work, another problem unveils itself. Not only does this inflict harm on the student, but it also teaches the student that you need to use physical violence to resolve disputes with peers, family, etc. This especially would become a problem when they are put in a position of authority.ResolutionOther methods (detention, suspension, etc.) can be far more effective, and for that matter, safer. Things like detention and suspension will not teach the student to resolve issues violently and will most likely not provoke depression (if not already being experienced from other matters). For detention especially, the teacher can assign tasks such as cleaning the desks, extra class work/homework, all the things that a student without detention would not want to do. As a result, the disobedient student would cease to break faculty rules.********Looking forward to your argument.Sources listed: http://www.forthechild.org... http://www.childhelp.org... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org... |
34 | 562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networks are beneficial to our society! 'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is "look at me, I did this" "look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org... |
34 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
21 | ff5b0936-2019-04-18T12:09:41Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity This will be a debate about whether man-made climate change is currently occurring and how it will affect the earth. The first round will just be for acceptance. I believe climate change is occurring, is caused by man and will have severe effects on the ecosystems of earth and would like to have a discussion with someone who disagrees. |
35 | 7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00008-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children I will be debating why video games are hardly a reason to blame violent acts cause by kids. Con will do the opposite. Keep in mind i count as a minor under the law because i am 13 years of age. You may continue the debate |
24 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
23 | 7301aafd-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering I wish him good luck in this debate. Libertarian Grim Dark FrameworkThroughout history people have been inspired to make inventions to help the masses and progress soceity. Though the sad fact is tha the government hasn't always used these inventions to the best of their use in order to help people. The Guillotine being one of the greatest examples of a doctor creating an invention for a more humane way for prisoner executions. He had no idea that the Revolutionaries would use this to execute thousands in the Reign of Terror. He had no idea that France would use this to silence their political opposition. Peter Jensen has seen his invention of the loud speaker to turn into a massive invasion of privacy and brainwashing as Hitler took the project and changed it to how he saw fit. Euthanasia. Even though there's a good intention behind the practice history has shown that if you give the government the power of the invention via legalization that it will be used for the wrong reason. Many great authors have already begun to forecast this. The best example is that of "The Giver" where the weak are killed off via infantcide and the old are euthanized. There is already a beginning of a mounting support for the practice of eugenics and if this becomes legalized then it will enlarge the government and allow them to infrindge on the rights of their citizens and even take their lives. In this debate I will show why it shouldn't be legalized as we are already seeing this fall from grace and it is our job of this generation to halt this trampling of our rights before we give the government another weapon like the Guillotine or even the Dark Net. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. Contention 2: The Slippery Slope ArgumentKeown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia. " However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? "From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. "From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. "From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]Contention 3: Self Ownership and SicknessConsent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, ""it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. " [11]This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section. |
28 | cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal The US federal government does not have jurisdiction over prostitution.[1] In most states it is a misdemeanor in the category of public order crime.[1] [2] I assume he is simply stating that the exchange of sex for money should not be prohibited, making US law like Canadian law.[3] Countries like Canada with this policy have added laws to reduce prostitution because of the problems it brings. In Round 1 Pro made the following 4 points: (Grammar mistakes not corrected) 1. "If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange." 2. "Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal." 3. "legalization makes prostitution safer" 4. "My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties." Government uses legislation to reduce harm. Legislation on guns, explosives, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and also prostitution fit here. To say "I should be allowed to purchase a nuclear warhead as a free exchange between two consenting adults" is ridiculous. Prostitution causes harm. Legislation is in place to reduce its frequency and the harm done. Pros point 2 shows that he agrees that some aspects of prostitution need to be illegal. Pro claims that legalization makes prostitution safer. He gives no evidence for this claim. The German experience is that legalization of prostitution INCREASED the death toll and violent crime, in part because of the increased numbers of prostitute. Pro says "government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties." Government should carefully consider which issues are so critical that they require legislation. There are such dangers involved in prostitution that it needs to be prohibited by law. Like impaired driving and public intoxication there is both public nuisance and potential for harm that seem to always accompany prostitution. Public nuisance and widespread harm are just two of the reasons that prostitution should NOT be legal. PRO contends that "Most prostitutes chose their profession." Let me point out major faults with Pros interpretation of a study.[4] 1. There was a move from managed (brothel and escort) to private sector following decriminalization. Danger to sex workers from both violence and disease increase when the go from a "managed environment" to "private sector." – "Street-based workers were more likely . . . to report refusal of a client to pay, having had money stolen by a client, having been physically assaulted by a client, having been threatened by a client with physical violence, having been held against their will and having been raped in the last 12 months." 2. The sample was not a random. The majority of participants were white, "between the ages of 22 to 45 years, had entered the industry after age 18, and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level with many having tertiary levels of education" – the New Zealand study is irrelevant to our situation where our demographic is much different. 3. Even with these survey participants, the picture is horrifying. For example - "87% of all survey participants have a regular doctor but only half of these participants disclose their occupation to their doctor." This means 13% have no doctor at all, and 51% have not told a doctor that they are in the sex trade. THIS IS AFTER LEGALIZATION! - "participants discussed not telling their doctor of their occupation because they thought that there was a stigma attached to sex work and also there was a fear that the knowledge of their occupation would affect their treatment for other health issues." – Legalization will not change this, but will increase the number of sex trade workers. - "There was little difference in disclosure of occupation to health professionals in Christchurch participants pre- and post-decriminalisation." - "over one tenth of participants reported not using protection at some time in the last 12 months" - "Clients frequently request sex without a condom." . . . some "report doing the job without a condom but charging more." - "Few participants reported adverse incidents that had happened in the last 12 months to the police." – This dispels the myth (PROs claim) "If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested." This study make me question the wisdom of those who say legalized prostitution will make it less of an issue for worker safety, client health, social health and the ability of workers to seek legal protection. Pro quoted the study about Germany's failure: "Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws." This is a "red herring" argument. All legal businesses are required to obey local zoning laws. Street prostitutes don't like being told by club owners that they can't sell their products there. Brothel owners who want to put their businesses on Main Street. This is little different than someone setting up a hotdog stand (pun not intended) by city hall. Pro failed to counter the health risks of promiscuity. He claims "77.8% always use condoms." This claim is likely high (error in self reporting is common). It assumes too high an effectiveness of condoms. It ignores the incubation period where diseased people show no symptoms. Look at the following statement by the Center for disease control (CDC).[5] - "condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner." [6] Pro failed to counter the link between prostitution and human trafficking. His claim that "Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally" is absurd. The US has 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants,[7] many working. The political situation around Germany effected the problem of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking happens now. If prostitution is legalized it will increase. Pro claims no "evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution." This is false. Prostitution is a most dangerous business. More workers in the sex trade places more people at risk. An American study[8] found that prostitutes are 200 times more likely to die (when adjusted for age and race). In Germany the numbers of prostitutes grew ten times since legalization, much of that growth linked to human trafficking and coercion. [1] In USA – http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] In Canada - http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.otago.ac.nz... http://www.justice.govt.nz... [5] http://www.cdc.gov... [6] http://www.cdc.gov... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... |
32 | 378f5f8b-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00002-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | the traditional university will be replaced by online learning Online courses undermine live communication with professors and other students |
32 | 378f5f8b-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | the traditional university will be replaced by online learning Online courses encourage sharing of academic information |
49 | 8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00009-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural |
41 | 574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000 | 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! |
48 | 3466130d-2019-04-18T19:37:30Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Drinking age should be lowered. I think it shouldn't be lowered at all because it will only cause more deaths and accidents in the U.S. the leading cause of car crashes and fatalities are from drinking and driving. most are caused for people under the age of 21. lowering the age would only increase the risk and increase the rate of deaths. http://www.resource4accidents.com... |
20 | 84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00002-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not "loaded" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly "sparked" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion ("Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an "average" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The "asian flush" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end. |
38 | ffcf93d6-2019-04-18T18:36:12Z-00005-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Pick your own debate! I have a list 96 peer reviewed double blind studies on medical effects of using Marijuana as medicine. I will go through every one that shows marijuana is effective in treating some kind of illness (I will go down the list as they list the studies so you can easily follow). 1)Marijuana medical treatments improved spasticity a disabling complication of multiple sclerosis. 2)Patients with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were given medical Marijuana the result was a decrease in pain, and an increase in proper sleep scheduling and restful sleep. 3)Medical marijuana was able to reduce pain for cancer patients who still felt pain even with opioids. 4)Patients using medical marijuana with neuropathic pain associated with HIV distal sensory polyneuropathy experienced reduce pain 100% more with medial marijuana. (ill be skipping studies that show medial marijuana helps with pain and instead just saying that another study shows it reduces pain). 5)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 6)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 7)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 8)Medical marijuana helped reduce intraocular pressure. 9)Medical marijuana helped increase the appetite of patients who appetites have been destroyed by medical procedures. 10)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 11)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 12)Medical marijuana was use to improve people's moods, sleep, and reduce fatigue, 13)MM (medical marijuana) used to reduce spasm and improve mobility in patients with spasticity. 14)MM was used and shown to decrease the spread of cancer cells in people with invasive cancer. 15)MM used to increase low weight HIV patients, and to improve their sleep, and mental functions. 16)MM was almost 100% more successful in treat HIV related peripheral osteopathy 17)MM was successful in limiting symptoms of Alzheimers. I'm going to stop there and say that medical marijuana is used to help alleviate many illness and should be allowed. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... |
18 | d22f2d43-2019-04-18T19:26:50Z-00006-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | There are more churches than Circle Ks Not so fast. Maybe what I really meant was there are more churches than convenience stores. Such a figure of speech, a synecdoche, is a type of metaphor and one could not be blamed for supposing that common parlance to be intended. Who knows, maybe even grocery chains are similar enough to Circle K stores to be included. If churches are also similar enough then you have an auto win. No geographical scope was specified so maybe there is a part of the world, certainly any Circle K. Out of space. |
9 | aa02d263-2019-04-18T13:53:11Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Should Students Have To Wear Mandatory Uniforms Since my opponent has failed to attempted to negate my argument I will not propose a new argument. |
24 | ebea7596-2019-04-18T16:04:14Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Corporate Tax Should be Abolished Thank you AdamCass, I will quote my opponents arguments and try to refute each one individually. 1."With this interpretation, it is only fair that this 'legal citizen of the United States' pay tax. Corporations, as much as they would like to, cannot only have the better side of the deal." My opponent argues that corporations are "guaranteed the same rights as a natural citizen" and thus should pay taxes as a citizen would. I think that this argument falls apart under close examination. It makes sense that a corporation would have the right to "use" the roads, because what this means is that the owners of a corporation have the right to employ somebody to use the roads. Since all the owners of the corporation and the employees all have the right to use the roads, it makes sense that they still have this right when they call their arrangement a "corporation". Because all of the members of a corporation individually pay tax for these services, it does not make sense to require them to pay a second layer of tax through their corporation. But even if you disagree with this point, there is still good reason to reject my opponent"s argument. First, one foolish policy does not justify another, so if corporate personhood is a foolish policy, and it is the justification for corporate tax, the solution is not to keep both, but to get rid of both. Second, if you believe that a corporation is a "'legal citizen of the United States"" then "it is only fair that this 'legal citizen"" pay the same tax as any other legal citizen, that is, the income tax. If you believe that a corporation should pay tax just like any other citizen, then the argument should be to apply income tax to corporations, not to have a separate tax system just for corporations. 2."Corporate taxation contributed to 10% of US Federal government revenue in 2013, over $234 billion. This is a substantial amount of money, money that goes into education, health, infrastructure, the military and many other key areas of government spending, all of which rely entirely on such finances." Certainly, an enormous amount of money is generated by the corporate tax, but as we have already demonstrated, corporate tax is simply not the most economically efficient way to raise revenue. That is, the harm to the economy cause by generating an additional $234 billion of income tax revenue would be less than the harm inflicted by the $234 billion generated by the corporate tax. (As I explained in Round 2, this is largely due to the mountains of additional and unnecessary paperwork that having two separate tax codes creates) Even better than increasing the income tax would be creating a new tax on a currently unused revenue source such as natural resources. To summarize, all of the public services currently funded by the corporate tax could receive the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDING, AT LESS HARM TO THE ECONOMY, if the corporate tax were abolished and replaced with a better method of raising revenue. 3."Furthermore, the competitive nature of retail and industry in this country, between corporations, practically force prices down to as low as possible. The removal of a corporation tax would be unable to in any means lower or reduce overall prices dramatically enough to impact someone's back pocket." This is simply not true. Corporate tax is between 15% and 35% in the United States. [1] Given the enormous level of consumer spending, even a tiny reduction in the prices of consumer goods would dramatically affect people"s back pockets. Competition does drive down prices, but the lowest possible price is made higher by the corporate tax. If a profit margin is too low, investors are not interested in starting new companies or investing in existing ones. Also, if corporate tax were abolished suddenly, it is very likely that many CEOs would keep dividends at present levels, (levels shareholders are already happy with) and use the extra income to reinvest, pay workers more or lower prices. (Companies would have an incentive to do this to attract customers) For years under the direction of Steve Jobs, Apple paid no dividends to owners of Apple stock. However, even in what I think my opponent would consider the worst case scenario, the absurdly unlikely situation that prices would not be lowered and wages would not be raised, Americans would see 15 to 35% increases in their retirement portfolios. Those worried that increased corporate profits would dramatically enrich the already wealthy could propose a similarly dramatic increase in the top marginal tax rate. 4."Furthermore, the United States is in a chaotic fiscal climate. While debt and deficit continues to restrict the ability of the United States Government to deliver various services in a climate of fiscal austerity, the removal of a major revenue raiser would only further impact the budget. If the government, like you suggested, were to instead raise income taxes and abolish/lower corporate tax, this would have a direct impact on the American middle class, through additional taxation." First, it is entirely possible to raise the tax rate on the rich but not on the middle class. But more importantly, my opponent ignores the fact that corporations receive nearly all of their income from the poor and middle class in the first place. The idea that abolishing the corporate tax will lead to class problems is ridiculous. When middle class people own stock in a corporation, and middle class people spend money buying things from that corporation, after paying workers (mostly middle class) the money is returned to the middle class stock holders. Thus, no money has left the middle class. When rich people own stock in a corporation, money is transferred from the middle class to the rich, but this can easily be offset by taxing the rich. A higher income tax rate on the rich directly burdens only the rich. The corporate tax burdens the rich, but also burdens middle class shareholders and consumers, and also creates unnecessary paperwork. 5."Also, I agree that not all corporations are large, wealthy multinationals. The law and the US tax code recognizes this. In the United States, there are many different types of business ownership/entities, which are recognized under federal and state law. For example, a small business in Wyoming classified as a sole proprietorship would be taxed differently to a multinational corporation based on Wall Street. The corporate tax system is flexible in that respect, and larger more affluent corporations are taxed higher than smaller businesses." First, a sole proprietorship is not a corporation. The corporate tax applies only to corporations, not sole proprietorships or partnerships. This illustrates another of the corporate tax"s shortcomings. The (single) owner of a sole proprietorship that makes $100,000 per year will pay a different tax rate than a person who owns 50% of a corporation that makes $200,000 per year, despite the fact that their shares of their businesses" incomes are exactly the same. In fact, in nearly all jurisdictions, the owner of a $100,000 per year sole proprietorship will pay a LOWER tax rate than someone who owns 1% of a $200,000 per year corporation, because the corporate tax is higher than the tax on sole proprietorships. This is obviously a grossly unfair arrangement, and it is the inevitable result of having a separate tax on corporations. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org... |
10 | 4e77cb28-2019-04-18T19:04:35Z-00006-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | is SAT required to get in a good college First of all the SAT is a test to see if prospective students are ready for college. My opponent has used the very popular I'm a "bad test taker" excuse to say the colleges judgment of a students admission is unfair. Well I just got to say in college a vast majority of your grade will be on the Mid Term, and Final not homework or participation so if you are a "Bad test taker" you won't survive very long in college to begin with. Having a 3.9 GPA does not necessarily prove anything because there are a lot of different scenarios colleges must consider like maybe your school is full of teachers who do not grade very hard on tests, which would explain why a student would have such a bad SAT score but a high GPA. A student with a high GPA could easily have just gone to a very low difficulty high school like a high school trying really hard to seem like they have high GPA average. I have seen these schools first hand, in my freshman year of high school I attended one of San Francisco's lower high schools and they gave us a grade for homeroom just to raise our GPA. The SAT is a reasoning test taken by every college hopeful and it compares their reasoning ability with the rest of the country who have also taken the same difficulty test so the college system can tell who really is intelligent and who's piggy backing on a easy school system. It would be common sense that a student with a high GPA would have a high SAT score but when a student with a high GPA gets a very low SAT score their high GPA loses all merits because their skills have not been proven. |
42 | d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00005-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will NOT save my rebuttals for the end. I will Rebut my opponent's points now and give some more of my own: My opponent said that you could "play air hockey". The resolution we are debating has to do with if soccer is better "sport" than hockey. Air hockey is not a sport, no mater how awesome it might be. Also, my opponent says an advantage for hockey is fighting. Beating someone senseless does not seem like a great thing to me, no matter how much the fans like it. Take a look at this video where Kevin Westgarth of the Calgary Flames is fighting. He ends up getting a concussion: Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: "715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks |
17 | 1941fd60-2019-04-18T17:36:17Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Should marijuana be legal I am strongly against legalizing marijuana. I will first counter my opponent's arguments, then provide some of my own. 1. The government certainly does have the right to tell people that they cannot smoke marijuana. The Pro's only argument here is that it is "on shaky ground", but that is not a real argument. The government does have the right to do this because there are far more health risks than benefits, which I will explain latter on in my argument. 2. The Pro's argument that marijuana should be legalized because its enforcement is racist is flawed. That is like saying that we should legalize murder just because more black people are convicted than whites. This is clearly a faulty argument and should be ignored. 3. The Pro has no source to back up her statistic about the cost of enforcement, so it to should be ignored. Even if you take her word for it, cost is not a good reason to legalize marijuana. All law enforcement costs quite a bit, so by Pro's logic, we should let all the criminals out of prison because it costs too much to keep them there. Also, the police force in general costs "about $635 billion" [1], so $7.7 billion isn't really all that much. 4. The Pro's argument that marijuana crimes ruin lives is not valid. Of course getting arrested for committing a crime will be bad for you; that's one of the main reasons behind the justice system. We should not legalize something just because the punishment hurts them. By that logic, we should make everything legal and have no laws. 5. Pro says that marijuana creates a criminal underground, but gives no indication that legalizing marijuana would help. Marijuana is just one of many of gang related "illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. " [2] You can see here that there are many more crimes than illegal marijuana sales going on here, so legalizing one of them would not make the gangs go away. 6. Once again, Pro's arguments are unsupported by evidence and logically faulty. Just because we cannot catch every criminal does not mean that we should just let them commit their crimes. By Pro's logic, if we cannot catch every murderer, we should probably make murder legal. 7. Pro says that we should legalize marijuana because it would bring in tax revenue, but that would go against the moral code of America. Legalizing marijuana for the purpose of tax revenue would be akin to the government taking bribes. We would be allowing a criminal act to take place in return for money. Bribery is against American honor and should not be a reason to legalize marijuana. 8. Pro's point about how alcohol and tobacco are already legal does not advance her case at all. I personally believe that alcohol and tobacco hurt our society, so her point could be as much a reason to outlaw alcohol and tobacco. Just because alcohol and tobacco are legal doesn't mean that they should be, therefore this point falls. Now, onto my argument. The main reason that marijuana should not be legalized is the harmful effects it has on the smoker's health. Smoking marijuana, especially at a young age, can have seriously detrimental effects on the smoker's mental capacity. A Science Daily report said that "people who start using marijuana at a young age and those who use the greatest amount of marijuana may be the most cognitively impaired". [3] Smoking marijuana also increases the risk of cancer. Men's Health says that "men who reported smoking pot in the past were twice as likely to have certain types of testicular cancer". [4] Finally, government studies say that "marijuana users generally report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, relationship problems, and less academic and career success compared to their peers who came from similar backgrounds". [5] This should be enough reason to keep marijuana illegal. 1. . http://www.salon.com... 2. . http://www.fbi.gov... 3. . http://www.sciencedaily.com...... 4. . http://news.menshealth.com...... 5. . http://www.drugabuse.gov...... |
3 | 82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy The topic is: A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy. I started this same debate, but my opponent forfeited. I've literally cut and paste from my other debate. First round includes substantive arguments. In order to win this debate, I must show at least one example of a government intervention into the free market that, if removed, would harm the economy. I will present three such examples: patents, insider trading, and market externalities, 1. Patents Currently, the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to issue patents and copyrights for a limited duration. This is an intervention into the free market, because it prevents competitors of the patent holder from engaging in a competing enterprise. However, in the absence of such grants, the economy would be harmed because there would be less of an incentive for companies to develop new pharmaceuticals. Although invention occurred before the issuance of patents and copyrights, much of the innovation of the 20th century, particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, occurred because patents permitted the holder to guarantee a period of economy prosperity, which in turn justified the development of new products. In the absence of patents, there would be a substantially reduced incentive to develop new drugs, which would harm the economy. 2. Insider Trading Federal laws prohibit the use of "insider information" to make decisions about buying and selling shares on a market exchange. Although the set of rules surrounding insider trading is beyond the scope of this debate, it generally prohibits people who have non-public information from using that information to buy and sell stock (usually of a company that they work for or are affiliated with). This is an intervention into the free market, because a totally free market would permit people to buy and sell stock using whatever information they have available. However, if insider trading was permitted, many investors would not have sufficient confidence in the stock market to invest their funds. Investing money into the stock market is always considered a risky venture because most companies have the potential to go bankrupt. However, most investors rely on publically available information to make their investment decisions, and feel confident that the market price accurately reflects all available information. If "insiders" such as corporate executives have access to secret information, such as the fact that a new product is likely to fail, or the company is about to be purchased by a competitor, they can use that information to make a large profit. The result is that "outsiders" stand to lose significant money in their investments. If this occurs often enough, investors will begin to lose trust in the system, and may choose not to invest their money in the stock market entirely. The stock market is the primary method of raising capital for corporations, and a lack of capital would hamper productivity, which harms the economy. 3. Market Externalities A market externality is a cost placed on someone other than the person who receives the benefit. For example, a company which dumps toxic waste into a river gets a benefit (a cheap place to dispose of waste), which people downstream on the river get a cost (it damages their land). Currently, the federal government regulates interstate waterways to prevent the dumping of toxic waste. This is an intervention into the free market, because a truly free market would not prohibit a party from maximizing its profits. However, if market externalities are not regulated by the government, the country will actually lose productivity. In a scenario where there are no controls on pollution, companies have an incentive to destroy common lands, such as rivers, public fields, and the atmosphere by disposing of their waste products. This is efficient for a company, because they don't bear the full cost of the waste disposal, yet receive all of the benefit. However, this leads them to pollute more than if they did have to pay the full costs. The result is that there is more pollution than optimal. If this reaches extreme levels, short sighted companies could permanently damage waterways and the atmosphere, which would significantly harm the economy. Conclusion Although most people would agree that there should be some government interventions into the free market, others take an absolutist view that there should be no such interventions. I believe I have demonstrated three reasons why, at the very least, there should be some interference with the free market. |
15 | b5e9eaa8-2019-04-18T15:24:16Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Commercial Debate This commercial is very emotional, and nostalgic, since it deals with an event that we all are going to go through. |
41 | cd8f2091-2019-04-18T15:48:47Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Tracking Devices in Student I.D I accept. I will be arguing Con. Schools should not put tracking devices in student I.D. cards. Good luck. |
7 | 85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00000-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line "---" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation."This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote."I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting."You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they 'serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, "We need you to stay away from children" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections."The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not "'hate'" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral."Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America. |
43 | e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00008-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) There is no argument for this, stop trolling or I will get my friends to vote for me. |
23 | e21a50a3-2019-04-18T12:16:45Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia should be legal I will do my rebuttals first 1. I kind of could use that argument to be for euthanasia. For example euthanasia has been performed illegally in other nations but if we legalise it the crime rate would drop and people would stop doing euthanasia illegally because it would be legal. 2. I haven't got a rebuttal for half of the cases being done without consent but I've got a solution, they record the patient giving consent so the physician's got proof that the patient that got euthanized gave consent . The same solution for murder. 3. Actually euthanasia isn't against a violation of a doctor's duty in countries that euthanasia is legal in so if euthanasia was legalised it wouldn't be a violation of a doctor's duty because it is legal then. People who want euthanasia but are not getting it are being forced to be alive and I think being forced to be alive when you don't want to be alive is very wrong, it is a person choice on whether they want to live or die. Suicide is legal so why can't this be for this reason. |
38 | d6ea2137-2019-04-18T15:14:36Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Should Marijuana be legalized I firmly believe that marijuana should be illegal, and it should be kept from people of any age. |
28 | 5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US Good luck to you! |
36 | 97a51368-2019-04-18T13:33:03Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Cheerleading is a sport Here are the requirements in order for an activity to be a sport. * A physical activity which involves propelling a mass through space or overcoming the resistance of a mass. We throw 100-130 lb flyers into the air BOY OR GIRL...so check that one off * "Contesting" or competing against/with an opponent. There is competitive and school cheer, both can compete...Check that off too * Governed by the rules which explicitly define the time, space and purpose of the contest and the conditions under which a winner is declared. We are on a mat for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, there is your time, We have a 9 panel floor, and if we step off, its bad, like football or soccer, there's your boundaries, and there is first, second, third, and sometimes fourth place...therefore a winner is declared....Nationally, state wide, or district wide * Acknowledged primary purpose of the competition is a comparison of the relative skills of the participants. W are not allowed to compete in a division if it doesn't have our skill level, therefore there is comparison in skills Take another look at your Merriam Webster Dictionary argument! |
24 | 4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets C1) We should reduce the corporate tax rate Having a competitive tax system is increasingly important in a globalized economy. Globalization means firms wishing to invest capital in a region can be easily encouraged—or deterred—if taxes increase or decrease. High corporate taxes discourage investment and reduce economic growth. America has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.1%.[1] This is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%. The harmful effects of high corporate taxes are visible in our economic system. Johansson et al. has a paper published by the OECD investigating the impacts of different types of taxes and economic growth. The paper found that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are the most detrimental to economic growth. The study found that a 1% shift of tax revenues from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by 0.25 – 1% in the long run.[2] Johansson also found that statutory corporate tax rates of 30 to 35%, which the US now surpasses, reduces investment by 1.9%. To quote Johansson, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate would "lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth." The reason for this is because many of the firms that are productive also rely on retained earnings to pay for their expansion. Tax cuts would increase the amount of retained earnings and increase prospects for future firm expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold confirms the findings of Johansson and concluded that corporate taxes "have the most negative effect on GDP per capita."[3] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent.[4] The biggest problem with having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is that it reduces our international competitiveness. Incentives matter, and taxing labor and capital simply means that the incentives to make more of it decrease. If a country has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than we do, it is our companies and workers that suffer. The current corporate tax rate caused companies to shift $50 billion away from the United States to countries with lower corporate taxes.[5] Despite our high corporate tax rate rayr, we do not have much to show in the way of revenue. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset have found that the revenue maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%.[6] Any corporate tax rate above 26% would decrease revenue. This is not surprising as the average OECD corporate tax rate is 24.8%. As international businesses can relocate to a location where taxation is lower (which means more profits), having a tax rate far above the OECD average would deter potential businesses from entering the country. This means a smaller tax base. Brill's and Hasset's study is supported by basic cross sectional data. In the US, corporate income tax revenue makes up 2.2% of our GDP; for the OECD, that number is 3.4%.[7] Despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the percent of our corporate tax rate revenue to our GDP is over one percent lower than the OECD average. This confirms the Brill and Hasset analysis that current corporate tax rates are on the far side of the Laffur Curve. Studies claiming that corporate tax cuts do not cause growth have no solid foundation. Owen Zidar, who opposes tax cuts for the rich, finds that tax cuts for the middle class cause economic growth.[8] It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class would increase consumption and cause growth. Luckily, corporate tax rates do cut taxes for the middle class. According to another study by Zidar, workers receive 35% of the benefit from corporate tax cuts.[9] The literature says tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, and corporate taxes benefit the middle class; it seems illogical to claim corporate tax rates would not help the economy. The Zidar estimates are a bit on the conservative side. The CBO has found that "domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax."[10] Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that workers of unionized industries carry 56% of the tax burden from corporate taxes.[11] A tax cut would bring a huge benefit to middle and lower class workers. C2) Reduced income taxes cause growth Lower income taxes cause growth; yes, even for the rich. It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, so I assume the majority of this debate will revolve around tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes for the wealthy make up for the majority of our revenue, and it is only the top quintile of incomes that actually pay significantly more to the government than what they cost (e.g. they pay more taxes but use fewer social services).[12] Using tax revenues as a proxy for tax rates would work out pretty well. The following graph, using local tax revenues as a proxy for local tax rates, compares tax revenues to growth rates. Here is the data: There is a clear and strong correlation between lower tax revenue and faster GSP growth. According to the data, 40% of the variance in growth rates at a local level are determined by the tax burden.[13] This data does not include severance taxes or growth related to oil and gas. This is because merely having an abundance of resources could interfere with the results. While defending tax cuts we must look at the 1980s. I will defend Reaganomics responsibly. You think tax cuts in the 80s were the cause of the rapid growth during that decade? They weren't. Federal Reserve policies must be credited for that. But that does not mean the Reagan tax cuts were a failure—they were a great success. The benefits from the tax cuts were long term; they increased innovation and heavily contributed to the growth in the 1990s a decade later. According to the American Enterprise Institute, "Reagan's economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. … [T]he changes Reagan championed in the tax system fostered innovation and entrepreneurialism even as they encouraged the development of venture capital and investment in human capital."[14] His policies allowed businesses, which may not have been created due to high risks from a terrible tax code, to come to fruition. Tax cuts do not benefit us in between each business cycle; tax cuts take years for the benefits of increased investment to show up. Reagan's tax cuts didn't cause mega growth in the 80s, but it caused growth well past his term and beyond. The example of Reaganomics—that tax cuts take time to kick in—is confirmed by peer-reviewed literature. A study by economist Robert Reed argued that "tax policies take time to work," and that when the effects kick in, "a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges."[15] When we increase taxes, it takes time before the negative effects fully take hold—the reverse holds true. More progressive tax systems lower economic growth. A progressive tax system means the wealthy pay more than the poor; the larger the gap between the amount the rich pay and the poor, the more progressive a tax system is. When a tax system increases in progressivity, meaning the rich pay more taxes, there is less growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve study observed that "a decrease in tax progressivity did lead to higher growth … differences in tax code across countries could explain up to a two and half percent variation in economic growth."[16] The negative effects of high taxes, even on the wealthy, has been confirmed by studies by the Mercatus center as well as the American Economic Association.[17-18] Reducing tax rates on the wealthy would promote more economic growth. C3) Revenue As I showed in the case of corporate taxes, we could reduce the corporate tax rate by over 10% and increase revenue.Income taxes are a different story. Depending on how a tax cut is crafted, tax cuts may or may not pay for themselves. If the marginal rate was extremely high, reducing it to a moderate level would reduce deficits. There are always Laffur curve effects, so the changes in revenue could be exaggerated by a static analysis. This is not to say that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Despite revenue losses, tax cuts would still increase GDP growth. If we reversed the 2012 4% hike in taxes, revenues would only fall by $14 billion, but GDP would grow by 0.43%.[19] In fact, revenue maximizing policies would be detrimental to our economy as a whole.[21] Instead, we should focus on reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Sweden, for example, reduced the top marginal rate by 20% in the last recession, but they also prevented going into debt by reducing welfare spending. Countries that successfully reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios find that spending cuts rather than tax increases are a better way to fix the problem without reducing economic growth.[20] Spending cuts can increase growth. According to a research paper by the Mercatus Center, "fiscal adjustments on average reduced debt-to-GDP ratio by 0.19 percentage points of GDP in a given year. GDP grew by 3.47 percentage points in total, which is 0.58 percentage points higher than the average growth of G7 countries."[20] I am in favor of reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Reducing the corporate tax rate would increase revenue—abolishing the corporate tax rate would have little effect on our budgets.[22] http://bit.ly...; |
9 | 23c2cf2-2019-04-18T17:39:06Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School Uniforms Are Good Okay, I get what you mean when you say that poorer students may be bullied. Yes, it does happen. But with the amount spent on one set of the school uniform, you can buy about 10-15 new clothes(cheap ones of course). So if a student does ruin her uniform, she would not have enough money to get a new one and people would tease her for being poor. Sometimes it may not even be her fault if it happened by accident. Whereas if she were to ruin one of her fifteen clothes, she would still have another one she could use. As for the clothes that children wear, there could be certain rules that state that the students cannot wear clothes that are too fancy or any jewellery. This would help with the bullying. And wearing clothes that they do not feel comfortable in can also lead to the children losing confidence in themselves. They may feel that other students look better than them in the uniform and may feel inferior. If they are not comfortable with what they are wearing, how can they possibly be comfortable in their environment learning? Second, you said that uniforms will not be a burden for the parents. That is not necessarily true. As stated above, a uniform can be very, very expensive in certain countries. They would be better off buying more clothes. They can also use that for their everyday life so wearing normal clothes will reduce the total amount of money spent on clothes. And as I said before, the school can have rules that state students cannot wear certain kinds of clothing. They could also make clear that breaking the rules can lead to severe consequences e.g. Suspension or some other worse punishment. You mentioned that school uniforms improve self-esteem and self-respect. Won't students feel the same way wearing their own clothes? They would probably feel better in their own clothes in fact. They would feel good about what they are wearing because they are used to wearing it. And what if their uniform is dirtied by another student? School is not exactly one of the most clean or dirt-free environment. You can't ask the student herself to be responsible and not expect anyone else to do it by accident or on purpose. The student wouldn't even be able to ask the culprit to compensate for her ruined uniform if she didn't know who the person was. And not all students are very responsible. If they were already the reckless and wild type, they would not care about their behaviour just because they were in their school uniform. I agree with you on the field trip point but the school could just hand out badges or other cheap things such as tags that could help others identify the students. Actually, some schools are actually quite strict about their dress codes and don't allow students to wear anything other than what is stated they have to wear. And this may be hard for students who have always wanted to go to a certain school but have religious beliefs which interfere with the dress code. School uniforms can increase the expenditure on clothes. Students would be better off buying more less cheap clothes. Uniforms are quite hard to replace because of their high prices. If one was to grow out of his uniform, it would be quite difficult to get a new one, especially if he comes from a poorer family. Clothes are a way for students to express themselves. It is a way for students to show others their personality and their style. Instead of forcing children to be the same, schools should educate students on how being different can be good and how working together despite their differences can be beneficial. This would reduce bullying and would allow students to understand their peers better. |
30 | c1dd1361-2019-04-18T12:56:07Z-00002-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | "Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality) "That isn't how this works. If you put up gun control in Indiana people are going to smuggle guns in from other states, if the whole nation gets gun control smugglers will get them in from out of the country. It's the same with drugs, they are illegal in all states, so smugglers smuggle them in from out of the country." - Fair enough. But there are 2 problems with this. First, if the guns are coming from out of the country, our gun laws don't apply, so the hypothetical problem would be with our border control, not our gun laws. Secondly, while yes, illegal guns will be smuggled in, the amount of illegal guns in the country will go down. Why? Well, look at your source. They say that most of the illegal guns used in Chicago come from other states, where they are legally bought. So it is easy for guns to be taken to Chicago. However, to get guns from out of the country would be much harder. You need to bring it from Mexico, passed the border, and then travel 1000 miles North to get the guns to Chicago. This would bottleneck the amount of guns getting to Chicago, as it would be way harder then driving a few minutes to Indiana, and buying a gun easily, and driving back. "the constitution is my source, the very first words were "we the people" not "we the states" or "we the militia" or "we the government" - Yeah, in the Preamble, not the second amendment. "like I said in the comments, there are too many sources to link them, so I post the video because it contains all of the links." - Yes, the comments exist. Post sources there. "you didn't disprove my statement about the comma." - This is because it was sourceless. "the point of the well-regulated militia part is to establish that arms are to be used in a well-regulated militia, but the comma is there to separate that from "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." what other reason is there for the comma? I could send you a source telling you the meaning of a comma, but you should already know a comma is to separate two parts of a sentence." - This is called a strawman argument. I never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well. Also, people used commas much more often back then then they did now. This is obviously if you look at pieces of writing from then. So it is more likely that the comma is there because the fathers thought it would sound better. "gun laws do affect law abiding citizens when you say what guns they can and cannot own, just because that's the gun a criminal owned. Non-restrictive gun laws aren't the issue, it's banning certain guns. I'd agree that fully-automatic weapons should not be in civilians hands, but a semi-automatic self-defense, hunting, and sporting gun should not be illegal.(the AR-15)" - I disagree. The AR-15 is not good for hunting or self defense. Hunting takes patience. You wait for hours, then when you see an animal, you slowly aim, then fire your shot. If you miss your first round, the animal will obviously hear you and run away. If you had a semiauto, maybe you could get another shot, but is that really the point of hunting? Your aren't supposed to fire tons of rounds at an animal, you only should need one, or more, if you track it. Yes, you can use it, but it is not meant for it. You could use pretty much any gun for hunting, at with varying effects. This doesn't mean Nerf guns or .50 cals are meant for it, or best for it. As for home defense, the best gun would be a shotgun, or a pistol. A semi auto gun is a medium range gun, poorly suited for an intruder 5 feet away from you. [A] With no valid source. [B] Once again, I can throw out this source. It has no evidence, other then the authors say so. The source says the fathers knew about the Air Rifle, but once again, it links to no historical documents or anything of that sort. [C] This is incorrect [1]. This is a link to a video with a gun that can be fired while attached to a drone. So this is legal for civilians. My point is again, as tech improves, laws need to as well. Yes, the Giradoni Air Rifle existed, but it is nothing compared to the guns we have today. "the point of that clearly flew right over your head. Madison let a civilian ship bear almost exclusively military arms was the point. No, I don't think civilians need military-grade firearms, but an AR-15 is a civilian grade weapon." - I don't get what you are trying to say here. "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I don't understand how you can make that statement when the second amendment clearly disagrees. Banning guns would be a move made in SEVERE disregard of the second amendment. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org...... "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The court said that banning the possession of handguns is an infringement of the Second Amendment. The functionality of a handgun and an AR-15 Is essentially identical. AR-15s just "look scary" - This doesn't rebut my statement. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't address my point. "how about Venezuela? They banned most firearms and have a much higher gun murder rate than the U.S. Or Honduras, which has stricter gun regulations and one of the highest gun murder rates in the world? Or Brazil? Or Swaziland? Or Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, or Colombia? Because those countries follow strict gun laws, and have higher murder rates than the us." - Oh come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons. My opponent has dropped my main argument: reduction of crime. I provided 3 examples to prove this. Japan, Canada, and the individual states. Canada and Japan have a significantly lower crime rate then the HS, and they have much stricter gun laws. I then provided and example of the states. I provided a chart which showed that states with more gun laws had a lower gun homicide rate. My opponent drops this completely. So he agrees; gun control reduces crime. "Our murder rate is much lower than theirs actually, it's our suicide rate that makes our gun death rate as high as it is. If we were basing it off of just gun murder, America would be far lower on this list. We don't need gun control, we need therapy, apparently." - Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides. "surprise, surprise, states with more knives have more knife related deaths, places with more cars tend to have more pollution, places with more criminals tend to have more crime. How about having people defend themselves from the crime that happens?" - What is this rebutting? "You can require safety measures, but you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot with them. how about more gun safety classes? That seems like a less expensive and more effective thing, to teach idiots what to do and what not to do with firearms, and not blame the gun if the idiot does something stupid with their firearm, instead of punishing law abiding citizens for it." - Exactly. I said we should require safety courses and safety measures in order to buy and keep guns. This would educate the idiots and would hopefully stop them from buying guns. For your second point, I wouldn't have a problem with guns. it is just that weak gun laws and more guns equals more death. I think guns are cool, but I believe people's lives far outweigh hobbies. "so you're saying it's a bad thing that people who carry firearms are much less likely to be involved in crime? I don't see your point. You're saying we need to stop concealed carry because it stops crime. As I said, a study showed that even an armed criminal is much less likely to engage with someone who they believe has a weapon on them. If more people carry, criminals will fear them more." - Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. The study I linked too showed that 75% of convicted felons said they carried guns because their victims might be armed as well. So the more people get armed, the more criminals arm themselves. This means innocent people could get shot by criminals, just because of the chance they were carrying guns. To conclude, I believe that passing more gun laws is a good thing. It will reduce crime, as showed in the real world. It also can reduce accidental deaths, and suicides. It also is constitutional, and, if it wasn't, laws need updating as tech advances. Thanks for the debate! Source: https://m.youtube.com... |
7 | 8fdf3c42-2019-04-18T19:34:44Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote For the sake of clarity, I would like to define some key terms: (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year I offer the following observations of the resolution: (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". The United Nations defines an ex-felon as somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, as somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution |
8 | a039e5a5-2019-04-18T19:00:50Z-00006-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Everybody seems to have debated this so I should too. |
32 | 40ca3bbc-2019-04-18T14:24:55Z-00006-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Christianity is probably the one true religion. I will address most if not all of what Con said in my rebuttal. This is my opening statement, so i'll just dive right in... The argument I will using is the Resurrection of Jesus. I will be using the argument formulated by Resurrection expert, Gary Habermas, which is known as the minimal facts argument. And the argument works like this... If the Bible is inspired, Jesus is raised from the dead. If the Bible is not inspired, but it's just reliable, Jesus is raised from the dead. If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you can still get the Resurrection, and Jesus is raised from the dead. So regardless of your view of the New Testament, Jesus is raised from the dead, which places skeptics in a dilemma. How this argument works is, we take skeptical data, because the majority of times skeptics, like Con will just go "ah, I don't believe anything". But if we take someone as skeptical as they are, but they are well trained in Biblical studies, I will take what the skeptical scholar accepts, concerning what happened to Jesus after his resurrection and his followers, I can prove the resurrection from the data that the skeptics accept. So there are 4 facts that the vast majority (we're talking 95-100%) of skeptical NT scholars accept (now just to be clear, I am not saying we should believe these facts just because the majority of scholars do, I am saying the evidence for these things is so great, which in turn is why the majority of scholars accept them as historical), but I will mention only 3 to save space: 1) Jesus' death by crucifixion. Evidence for it: All 4 Gospels of the NT report the crucifixion for us, as well as virtually every book in the NT. Not only the NT reports it, but a couple of Non-Christian sources report it: Josephus (A.D 37-100), a Jewish historian writes - "When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified" (Antiquities 18:63). Tacitus (A.D 56-117), Roman historian writes - Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius" (Annals 15.44) Even the Talmud states: "Yeshu was hanged on Passover Eve...he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy." (Tractate Sanhedrin 43a). So the Crucifixion is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, which is why Gerd L"demann writes, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." (Gerd L"demann, The Resurrection of Christ, p.50) 2) The earliest followers of Jesus had experiences, which they believed were appearances of the Risen Jesus This fact is agreed upon by the vast majority (98-99%) of NT scholars, most of whom are skeptical. The Apostle Paul, a man who knew the original apostles, testifies that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them, he does so in 1 Corinthians 15, when he writes "I gave you, what I was given" after which he goes on to list resurrection appearances to the disciples. Now Paul is not making this up, he is making it very clear that he received it from an earlier source. There is a virtual consensus among scholars that Paul is passing on tradition, which dates back to 35 A.D at the latest (5 years after the cross). And this creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) can easily be traced back to the apostles themselves. Not only Paul, but we have the testimony of Early Church Fathers about the beliefs on part of the disciples: Clement of Rome (30 A.D-100) - this man was a disciple of Peter, but he also learned from Paul, and many of the other eyewitnesses of the events of the life of Jesus, so he knew what the apostles were preaching, he writes in his letter to the Corinthians: "Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand." (Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 42) Polycarp (69 A.D-156) - this man like Clement interacted with many of Jesus' disciples, and was even appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John himself, he writes in his epistle to the Philippians: "Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles...they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered.they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us." (Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 9) Ignatius of Antioch (35 A.D-117) - this man was like the other 2, a personal student of the apostles, he studied mainly under the Apostle John, but it is possible that he was even ordained by Peter as Bishop of Antioch, he writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans: He [Jesus] came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. "And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 3) I could give more evidence to prove that the disciples sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them, but I think this is sufficient enough, the evidence is conclusive and strong, which leads Gerd L"demann, an Atheist NT skeptic to write: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." (Gerd L"demann, What Really Happened?, p. 80) 3) Jesus' tomb was found empty 3 days after his burial This fact, although not widely accepted among the vast majority of scholars, is still accepted by 75% of scholars (most of whom are skeptical) as historical. And there are good reasons to believe it: The empty tomb story is found in the earliest Christian traditions (the Pre-Markan passion narrative used by Mark and the allusion to the empty tomb in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7). The empty tomb story lacks signs of any legendary development (the Gospels don't record how Jesus rose, they just say that his tomb was found empty) The 1st witnesses to the empty tomb were women, which strongly suggests the authenticity of the account, and here is why - in 1st century Palestine, a women's testimony was considered to be useless, so it would've been self defeating to "invent the empty tomb story", yet have women as your first witnesses, any "invention" would've most certainly have had men as the 1st witnesses. Rather than the critics pointing to the occupied tomb, the earliest arguments against it was that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculius 30). There would have been absolutely no need to try to argue that the body was stolen if the tomb was occupied, the fact that the enemies of the Christians try to explain it away shows that the tomb was actually empty. Due to all this evidence in favor of the empty tomb, Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, states that "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." (Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, p. 49-50) The claims of the disciples that Jesus appeared to them itself doesn't prove that Jesus rose, if the disciples were hallucinating, then we would expect to find that the tomb was occupied, but in fact, all of our early evidence supports the conclusion of the empty tomb. The beliefs of the disciples combined with the empty tomb, provide a very strong case for the Resurrection. The best explanation for all these facts is that Jesus really rose from the dead, it explains why the disciples reported appearances, and why the tomb was empty very well. If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, I rest my case, Christianity is true, because Jesus left the tomb empty. |
4 | 91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment should be banned from schools NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children's behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of "but you can't take away my freedom", "you have no right" or "I have rights". In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com... |
42 | d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. I would like to start my stating my disappointment in con for deviating from the planned debate, but we can be flexible for the sake of time and amicability. In Con's first refutation he states the he would assume that if you do not know how to ice skate he hope you would not be playing professional hockey, and I agree, but he is leaving out one major thing about professional sports. Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills. So even though we are debating common fundamental skills, you can not deny that a professional player at one time had to learn how to play the game, and must continue to practice. I chose the professional level of play so that common rules would be placed into effect instead of certain rule sets where balks are not counted in baseball or checking isn't allowed in hockey, or any other rule differences among different age groups. I gave you flexibility, I think I may appeal to you for some leniency in this instance. In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back. A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively. Applying more to the professional level a hockey player must also be quick to think as there is a certain strategy to the game that takes more than a couple years to master. A player must learn where to move without the puck as well as with it, and players must jostle with defenders in order to get that crucial positioning, in addition to the offensive side, players must also recognize the same opportunities the other team has while they are playing defense. Conclusion: Although Con would like to make my mastering skating argument irrelevant the fact of the matter is that hockey players must continue to practice and work hard at that skill in order to maintain their high level of play. In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general. While he/she will pick up the concept more quickly the fact of the matter is there are more skills a player must master and practice in professional ice hockey than say boxing where they must only learn to punch, or football where players must mainly know how to kick and ball handle. In Con's second refutation he/she has misunderstood the my argument. I am not saying that a sport's danger defines it's difficulty, but instead that danger compliments the skills the players on the ice possess and perform. . http://www.youtube.com... in this video we see Blackhawks defenseman Brian Campbell skate back to track down a loose puck with Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin, known as a dirty player on his back. In the video at the 0:04 mark we see Campbell look back and see Ovechkin, knowing full well that he will be hit on this play Campbell maintains focus, tracks down the puck, and gets rid of it. A display of speed, skating, hand-eye coordination, strength, and most importantly focus all in one simple hockey play. You can see it again here . http://www.youtube.com... where Vernon Fiddler at the 0:03 second mark tenses up because he knows a hit is coming but keeps focus on a get rid of the puck. I can pull this examples all day. The point is that yes hockey being dangerous does not make it the hardest sport to play, but the danger the players are put through and the skills they are expected to being able to command under that danger make ice hockey a difficult sport. In Con's their refutation we see him/her come back to a point made earlier which I have already touched upon. Even though the skills are expected of pros you can deny the fact that they have once had to learn the skills, and they must still continue to practice and master that skill in the present. But Con does bring up an interesting point, "As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. " In the excerpt above con basically states that difficulty is relative, which is the whole basis of his argument, which I must admit is a tad bit annoying, no offense con, but everything can be relative. Hitler is evil to me, but I'm sure the White Power group down the street thinks of him as revolutionary, so I view your whole argument invalid in a debate setting. In addition you view swimming as harder, but I can guarantee you there are more people who can swim around the world than there are who ice skate, one continent in particular comes to mind. *Cough*Africa*cough* And with a whole continent out of the running I would say I have substantial evidence to refute that point. Argument: Con unfortunately I can not provide you with a player who has experienced both professional ice hockey and another sport. I think I know why though, because ice hockey players must devote their full attention and focus to their sport because they must practice so much to continue to master the skills and fundamentals of the game. But I challenge you to find me a professional ice hockey player who said hockey was easy, and don't give me some sarcastic quote please, it must be sincere. Conclusion: Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING. |
3 | 82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy BOP:The resolution is, 'A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy.' That means Pro is saying that removing all government interventions would hurt the U.S. economy. If there are 100 total government interventions, and 1 of them is slightly helpful, and the other 99 are incredibly harmful, removing ALL of them would help the U.S. economy overall. Obviously, if this were the case, it would negate the resolution. But under Pro's interpretation, if that were true, the statement 'a free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy' is true, because of the 1 good intervention. But this is ridiculous—removing all government interventions would help the U.S. economy overall in this scenario.What Pro probably meant to say is that 'not all government interventions are harmful to the U.S. economy', or be Con on 'all government interventions are harmful', or something like that. But that isn't what he said.Patents:Lawyers do handle the legal work for pharmaceutical companies, but this just helps prove my point. Pharmaceutical companies are wasting valuable resources hiring lawyers and suing, rather than investing that money in more innovation.I wasn't saying that the Watt example proved my point, it was an illustration of a general point, showing how patents hurt innovation. But if Pro would like examples more relevant to his main point, the pharmaceutical industry: Patents cause waste, by forcing companies to reengineer a slightly different version of a drug to compete with it. (see: all the different erectile dysfunction drugs you see on TV). About 75% of current R&D spending is on copycats of existing drugs. [1] In addition to wasting resources that could be spent on useful things, patents prevent innovators from producing many potentially helpful drugs. For example, Peter Ringrose, the chief scientific officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb told the New York Times that, "There were more than 50 proteins possibly involved in cancer that the company was not working on because the patent holders either would not allow it or were demanding unreasonable royalties." [2]Pro's last argument is basically "look at these people who agree with me." No data or facts, no arguments or logic explaining why patents work, just pro-IP people saying patents attract capital/increase innovation. This is not evidence. I've explained why patents hurt innovation, and provided empirical evidence showing the harmful effects of patents in the pharmaceutical industry.Insider Trading:Enron is not an example of insider trading—it was a case of fraud, which is completely different. Insider trading would be if I worked at, say, Microsoft, and I knew that the stock price was much higher than Microsoft was really worth. And so I shorted Microsoft, expecting it to go down to what Microsoft was worth, and made a lot of money. As evidence that insider trading hurts capital accumulation, Pro provides a speech by the SEC. Obviously the SEC thinks it's doing a good job—this is hardly evidence. It's absurd to think this claim has any merit. People don't invest in the stock market because of all the fairness—they invest their hoping to make money. They'll invest as far as they think they'll profit from their investments. Insider trading causes some people to profit less, but others, the insider traders to profit more. Even if the people who profit less invested less, the insider traders would invest more, so it would cancel out. And, since insider trading communicates more accurate information to the market, it would create a more profitable market overall, increasing incentives to invest overall.Definitions:Pro states that none of his definitions have the words "private property" in them, so I'm wrong. But even if they don't, they still all say the same thing as mine. "Free markets are simply millions upon millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchange pursuing what they see in their best interests."How could this definition make any sense if it didn't imply respect for private property? That's what Williams means by peaceable and voluntary. If that didn't include respect for private property rights, then what makes government not part of the free market? If I can pollute my neighbors land in a free market, then why can't the government tax and regulate his land in a free market? A definition of a free market that doesn't include property rights is absurd.Furthermore, Pro didn't define 'free market' in his R1, so I can define it as whatever I want.Externalities:Pro argues that without government, there would be no one to enforce property rights. This is false—private firms could compete to provide courts and police. It's happened before—for hundreds of years, medieval Ireland had anarchic law that protected private property [3], as did the American West in the 19th century [4]. Comparisons between anarchic law and order in the early American West and government control in the same area show that private, competing protectors did a better job of protecting persons and their property than governments. [4] In fact, free competition, not government, is the origin of the English common law system, which our legal system was based on. [5] This market legal system focused on crimes against person and their private property—much more so than government legal systems, which emphasize crimes against the state, or victimless crimes like drug crimes. [5] It focused on forcing criminals to make restitution to their victims, until the kings took over, and changed the focus to punishment and payment to the state in the form of jail and fines. [5] Medieval Iceland also had a successful anarchic legal system. Victims and their families were given a legal right to pursue the criminals that wronged them and force the criminal to pay them restitution, or hire someone to do so. [6] If they couldn't afford this, they could sell their right to someone who could afford to catch the criminal, so even crimes against the poorest people were punished. [6]Contrary to Pro's claims, the free market would not only not cause widespread deforestation; it's the best way to prevent it. Imagine a forest with $1 million worth of wood in it. The property itself is worth $1.2 million (the wood + other stuff the land could be used for). If this forest is privately owned, the owner would, to maximize his profits, replant trees as quickly as he cut them down. If he just cut trees without replanting, he'd get the $1 million in revenue right away, but his land would be worth $1 million less—he'd lose money overall, because of the cost of cutting down the trees. He'd want to continuously replant trees to keep the value of the land high—either so he could sell it to someone else, or cut down more trees later. Now contrast this with government controlled forests. They either wouldn't be cut down at all, wasting potential wood, or they'd be rented out to firms that cut them. Because the firms are renting the land, they have no incentive to replant trees—they don't care about the land's value, because it's not their land. The government could require companies to replant trees, but they don't have to, have no incentive to, and therefore often don't. Sources:[1] Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 226.[2] Pollack, A. (2001), "Bristol-Myers and Athersys Make Deal on Gene Patents," New York Times, January 8.[3] https://mises.org...[4] https://mises.org...[5] http://findarticles.com...[6] http://www.daviddfriedman.com... |
21 | 70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00007-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity. Pros CasePoint A: Man-Made Global Warming existsSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. " Scientists are undoubtedly sure that Man-Made Global warming is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: man-made global warming is the primary cause of Global WarmingSub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. "(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Scientific research has been done by a countless number of experts, and they have all come to a similar agreement. Humanity is the primary cause of global warming. To challenge this claim is to challenge the authority of research giants such as NASA. Environmental scientists are the authority on this subject, and they agree with the Pro. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [global warming] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. "(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of global warming. Point C: The effects of global warming are extreme. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: man-made global warming encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. "(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. "(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Man-made global warming is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with global warming left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). "(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. "(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, man-made global warming could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of man-made global warming could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that man-made global warming will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. " (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. " (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. "(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects Human lives are at stake, and even the economies of the world are at stake. SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that man-made global warming is indeed real. Furthermore, the effects of man-made global warming are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of man-made global warming. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. . http://www.nrdc.org...4. . http://www.mfpp.org...5. . http://www.edf.org...6. . http://climate.nasa.gov...7. . http://climate.nasa.gov...8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. . http://www.usatoday.com...10. . http://www.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; |
47 | ea4173a6-2019-04-18T17:11:07Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | should Students be given homework during the weekends Since this debate is coming to a closing and we"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general. 1.It improves your thinking and memory 2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life 3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely 4.It teaches you to work independently 5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work 6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class 7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information 8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits 9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations 10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects (Brought to you by http://blog.eskool.ca...) I would like to thank the people at http://blog.eskool.ca.... That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems. "In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. "So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework"" (Brought to you by http://www.studentpulse.com...) There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University. " DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework. Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school. "With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant," the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of "Review of Educational Research."" Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors. (Brought to you by http://today.duke.edu...) Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence. Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners. Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond. (Brought to you by http://www.topmarks.co.uk...) Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you. |
9 | 375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform In almost all government schools in the USA, uniform is not required, whereas there are few schools in the UK, private or government, that allow students to wear anything they like (usually a loose dress code applies). I will be arguing in favour of all high schools and secondary schools to make uniform compulsory. There are my main arguments. Having a uniform creates a sense of community Especially in larger schools, (800+ students) many teens feel left out, or that they don't belong. Having a uniform unites all the students, and shows that even though the school's population may be high, all the students are equal, which brings me on to my next point. Especially in government schools where there is a wide range of financial status between students, many may feel unhappy or left out if they can't afford more expensive clothes. Imagine how low a teenager's self esteem can be if most the girls or boys in their class show up to school in expensive or branded clothes, and they can maybe only afford clothes from supermarkets? This can cause many problems for the student. As I mentioned, feeling as though they are "poorer" than other students can really lower a student's self esteem, which isn't healthy for a teenager, or anyone for that matter. Secondly, if the student feels under pressure to wear certain brands to school, they may spend all their pocket money (if applicable) and wages (if they have a part time job) on expensive clothes rather than things they need such as stationary or study guides. Thirdly, as I mentioned; students can be subjected to bullying if they are not wearing "cool clothes" and this can cause psychological problems for the student later in life. Thirdly and finally, I believe that the media (movies, TV shows etc) really expresses how a student's clothing matches their personality. For example, "goth kids" wear dark clothes and lots of black eyeliner, and "theatrical kids" wear colourful retro clothes, or whatever. Some kids may feel like they don't belong in a certain friendship group or clique, because they can't afford or don't want to wear the kind of clothes the other people in the group wear. I believe that students should join friendship groups based on their personality, and not whether they have the right clothes to join. Thank you for reading my argument. |
22 | 2cc38a7d-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00013-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | No solution to the conflict Extra-judicial killing is illegal, immoral, contributes in no way to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can only serve to further delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world. There will be no shortage of volunteers to replace any that they kill - the longer the conflict continues the more Palestinians will see no way out but to attack Israel. The only solution is to negotiate and compromise - as the UK appears to have managed with Northern Ireland. The alternative is to repeat the Nazi 'final solution' which would be an horrendous irony. Unfortunately blood tends to lead to more blood as it is vengence people want when someone is killed. |
27 | 70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00000-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws U.S. Congress's Unwillingness to Pass New Gun Control Legistlation has Spurred President Obama to use Executive AuthorityU.S. Congress's unwillingness to pass new gun control legislation over this last decade--which includes failure to extend the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban [1]--has prompted President Obama to take matters into his own hands, by using Executive Authority, on the basis of surging incidences of mass shootings across the country.In Summer of 2013, after the U.S. Senate failed to pass bill S.150: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the White House closed a number of gun law loopholes and took various actions to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns and for certain assault weapons to be obtained inside the United States. One such executive action included barring the acquisition of machine guns and similar assault weapons without a background check; the new ATF regulation requires all individuals to undergo a background when trying to attain a machine gun, or similiar assault weapon, or a short-barreled shotgun [2]. The White House has also banned U.S. military weapons sold overseas and across national boundaries from returning to the country [2].The U.S. President has implemented a dozen more Executive Actions to close numerous gun law loopholes and to prevent assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands, but the extent of these regulations is brutally limited.Gun Crime & Injury Due to Firearms Are Off the Charts in AmericaStatistics show that America is presently experiencing a crisis with gun violence [3][4]:--On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for firearm injuries in the emergency room; 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year.--One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed with guns everyday (either murdered or suicide), 609 are killed with guns every week; over 100,000 are shot in the U.S. per year.--In 2011, more than 80% of all homicides commited in the U.S. were done with firearms.--In 2010, 82 children under 5 years old died from firearms compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty.--Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 then the number of soldiers (5,247) injured in combat in the war in Afghanistan that same year.--Every day on average, 51 Americans kills themselves with a firearm and 45 are shot or killed with a firearm.--The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.--In the U.S., firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people 1 to 19 years of age.--A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.The following map illustrates the number of deaths in each U.S. state due to injury by firearms per 100,000 people (year 2007). You'll notice that states with additional gun control laws have fewer deaths due to injury by firearms per capita; this is partly explained by the fact that there are fewer suicides by firearms in these states [6]. The financial toll of firearm violence/injuries in America is also staggering. Every year, U.S. taxpayers pay $100 billion for medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and other expenses caused by firearms violence or required for firearms violence prevention [3]. The lifetime medical cost of all gun violence victims in the U.S. is estimated to be $2.3 billion, with approximately half of the cost paid by U.S. taxpayers [3]. The lack of weak, porous gun control laws in the U.S. is a drain on taxpayers.And contrary to popular belief, the number and rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. have not decreased for a decade; they've actually remained the same [7]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that from 1999 to 2010, the number of deaths caused by firearms each year has remained constant (a slight increase) while the rate of firearms deaths has remained the same (10.32 deaths per 100,000 population) (table directly below) [7]. This is in contrast to the decline in both the number of deaths and rate of deaths caused by firearms observed over the previous decade, after the Brady law went into effect and required background checks on most gun purchases (all sales performed by licensed firearms dealers) [8]. Unfortunately this decline has not continued over the last decade.The CDC reports the same trend with HOMICIDE Firearms deaths and rates per 100,000 people over the last decade. Despite observing a decline in this number and rate from the 1980s to 1990s (after the implementation of the Brady gun control law), the numbers and rate remain constant from 1999 to 2010 (table directly below) [8]. The same trend is observed with suicides caused by firearms and with non-fatal injuries caused by firearms; this despite the Brady Campaign showing a slight drop in the percent of Americans and American households that own firearms during that period (graph directly below) [8]. The United States has more than 11,000 gun-related homicide killings per year--which is off the charts compared to other advanced countries [9]. Compare this to Japan, which experienced only 7 gun-related murders in all of 2011; in Japan guns are hard to come by, but they're not completely illegal (approximately half a million firearms are registered to private citizens in Japan) [9]. Japan has a population of 130 million people, or slightly less than one-half the population of the United States [9].U.S. Gun Rights proponents often bring up the the example of Switzerland to show how liberal gun regulation can accompany low gun crime. For example, the nation's 8 million people own 2.3 million guns, but gun-related homicides numbered just 24 in all of 2009; the U.S. has as rate that is 11 times Switzerland's [9].But what's often ignored is that most guns registered in Switzerland are military rifles issued to men when they join the conscript army (not concealable, portable handguns) and when Switzerland cut the size of its army over the decades, gun violence also fell, says criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Switzerland; domestic killings and suicides were higher when more people in the nation had access to guns [9]. According to Killias, the real problem is how many people have access to firearms, not the total number of weapons in the nation [9].And to substantiate this view critics point out that Switzerland has a firearms suicide rate that is the highest in all of Europe [9].Some Gun Rights proponents also point to Brazil and to Mexico as examples of nations that have banned firearms but that still see homicide-by-firearms rates higher than in the U.S. Still, experts point out that ferocious drug wars mixed with high levels of local corruption push and pull firearms into those regions, through porous, poorly-regulated borders, even though guns are banned in both nations. In these nations, drug gangs are often better-armed than police [9]. However, experts still point out that recent enacted guns laws in Brazil have made a noticeable impact on the country's homicide-by-firearms rate over the years [9].A recent study of international gun crime statistics has shown that the critical detail in gun violence around the world is gun ownership. Though guns are illegal in places like Mexico and Brazil, easy access to guns in these nations forces them to have high levels of gun crime. The study, which reviewed gun crime in 27 nations, showed that gun accessibility/ownership was an even bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to firearms deaths [10]. The study found that mental illness did play a role, but not as large as gun ownership [10].Mass Shooting Events are Surging in AmericaFinally, mass shootings are surging in america. Incidences of random mass shootings carried out by disgruntled perpetrators at public schools, in universities, in large malls, in theaters are on the rise [11]. The FBI reports that since 2000, the frequency of Active Shooter Events (mass shootings) has steadily been increasing (graph directly below) [11]. The number of people killed, shot, and injured in these mass shooting events is also surging (graph below) [11]. From 2000 to 2002, there was 5 or less mass shootings per year; by 2003, that number jumped to 7; by 2005, it jumped to 8; and by 2010, the number of mass shooting events climbed to 21 [11]. Horrifying events like those observed in Newtown, Connecticut (where 26 people were killed) and Aurora, Colorado (where 12 people were killed & dozens more injured) are increasing in frequnecy in the U.S.The number of school shootings is also on the rise (distinguished from "active shooter events"). In fact, since the heinous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut, there have been 74 separate school shooting events in the U.S. (map below) [12]. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://seattletimes.com...)[3] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[4] (http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[6] (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)[7] (http://www.dailykos.com...#)[8] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[9] (http://www.csmonitor.com...)[10] (http://www.npr.org...)[11] (http://leb.fbi.gov...)[12] (http://news.yahoo.com...) |
7 | 1dbec9e-2019-04-18T16:11:36Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Homos should not be allowed to vote Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as "hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but "progressives" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote. |
28 | 7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal in all countries! you've done well my friend O_o indeed it was regrettable ...now jog along then (: bub-bye ! |
24 | fbe0f0fc-2019-04-18T14:37:21Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama It's time for the final round, in which final rebuttals and argument defenses are finished along with conclusions. I hope my opponent had a wonderul Fourth of July.Economic GrowthMy opponent argues that Obama has provided political protection for Fed Chairmans Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in a similar way to the political protection Reagan provided Chairman Paul Volcker and a time when Fed policy of lowering inflation while raising unemployment was unpopular, but his sources do not prove this. His first source also describes Bernanke before a hearing in the Republican House. Obama isn't mentioned. It is more a criticism of Fed policy than anything else too. It isn't about slashing the power of the central bank. The second source from The New York Times is just as similar, with Yellen before a Republican committee on monetary policy, but it also never mentions Obama. In my sources, I cited quotes and gave specifics on how Reagan defend the Fed from defeat. My opponent has done no such thing during this debate.My opponent has demonstrated that nominal spending increased, which isn't saying much when put into perspective. If spending was so good for the economy, then why didn't Carter's domestic spending growth of 3.5% annually not work better than Reagan's only 1% growth annually? Total federal outlays as a percentage of GDP went down from 22.2% to 21.2%. My opponent has also failed to explain specifically, with any major source, how Reagan's slowed domestic and large military spending helped the economy. He needs to specify and it takes more than the GDP equation to prove that Reagan's spending desicively helped the economy. He also needs to prove why the nominal number is more important then the actual GDP number. Like I said before, Carter spent more, but the situation got worse. [1,2]I, on the other hand, have corresponded the tax cuts with when they were in full effect to when the boom of economic growth occured:"Specifically, here's how the phase-in occurred: Supposedly there was a 5% cut in income tax rates on October 1, 1981, 10% on July 1, 1982 and 10% on July 1, 1983." [3]Laffer shows when they went into full effect on figure 2, real GDP boomed. Obama should take a page from Reagan's book because it has been proven to work:"If policymakers were able to increase aggregate supply, then the Fed would be under no pressure to offset the effects with tighter monetary policy. That's because supply-side tax cuts actually tend to lower the inflation rates and raise growth. A good example is a cut in the employer-side of the payroll tax, which would encourage hiring but would not boost wages or prices. Indeed, the cost of labor from the firm's perspective would decline, whereas workers would see no change in take-home pay. Some economists believe that cuts in taxes on investment income might also boost aggregate supply." [8]My opponent likes to say Reagan raised a lot of taxes, but remember that I am looking at Reagan's specific supply-side tax cuts and there economic results. The income tax declined ferociously, from a top rate of 70% to 28%. That should not be in doubt. My opponent says Reagan raised taxes, but does not explain how much or how they corresponded with economic growth. My opponent has also forgot that the corporate tax rate went down as well, which went from 46% to 40% in 1987 to 34% in 1988. These are more examples of supply-side tax cuts. [4]My opponent has hidden the true Reagan tax record on the capital gains rate. Capital gains taxes did not go up when Reagan was president, but remained the same from when he started to when he left except for his first five years when they were lower. In 1981, Reagan's ERTA cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. It was raised again in the 1986 tax bill back to 28%. Taxes, as a whole for capital gains, did not go up during the Reagan years, but mostly stayed the same except for a period when they were lower. [5]My opponent goes after the debt because of Reagan's spending, but does not explain how Reagan's spending is more responsible than Fed policy for the high deficits. My opponent says Fed interest rates "may" have been responsible and to me this means like he's conceding. He needs to explains how much or how little it is responsible. I'm arguing the Fed policy was primarily responsible, but was necessary to deal with the inflation problem. At this my point, my opponent is getting desperate and is resorting to Wikipedia as well. One interesting point about my opponent's graph is that in the next five years deficits are set to go back up. This did not happen under Reagan. In th five years after his presidency deficits were set to go back down. In 1990, the projected deficit was to be $141 billion. In 1995, it was set to be $110 billion.[1]During the Reagan years, median household income increased every year. It has not done so under Obama, this alone shows that Reagan was better than Obama on the economy. Keep real GDP growth and the fact that he will never create as many in jobs in mind too. [6]Finally, my opponent says that other factor "may" be a factor. This is a concession. He does not say how much. All I can say that QE means a lot less from what it did in previous decades because of globalization. Multinational corporations don't just need the United States. Here is more explanation for globalization causing high profits as well as other factors:"1. We're buying companies, not economies. So if companies manage their debt, cash, resources, etc. better than the overall economy, then stocks can go up while the economy does not. It's similar to why I can prosper in a bad economy, because I run my personal finances differently than the overall macro economy. The same can be done with a company and with large companies collectively too. So the fiscal debt and its drag on the economy can be very different than a corporation's debt level. 2. Corporate earnings are stronger now than in times past, even though the U.S. economy is still weak. In other words, the overall earnings of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 are greater this time around as the S&P 500 index nears its previous tops from 2000 and 2007. We know that because of the price-earnings (P/E) ratios at the previous market peaks. In 2000, the S&P 500 peaked at a P/E of 29, while in 2007, it peaked at a P/E of 26. Today, the P/E, while at the same level as before, is at a P/E of 17.5. Big difference. So that means that there's a lot more in earnings this time around as these companies have hit these levels. Therefore, stocks could go higher than in the past due to the state of corporate earnings even though the economy is still somewhat weak. 3. The final reason why what's going on in the U.S. economy isn't reflective of what is or will happen in stocks is that most of the companies (if not all of them) in the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, etc. have very significant international operations that are affected by those economies as well as our economy." [7]HealthcareMy opponent has lied by saying he couldn't find the report about businesses and reported healthcare costs. If you go to page 12 you will the statistic where 77% of businesses reported an increase in healthcare costs.Judicial concerns are still relevant because they can affect the legislation, even if they don't kill it.My opponent has admitted that Obamacare has problems. These problems easily outweigh the benefits for the economy. "Not only is Obamacare costing hardworking American families hours and jobs, but thousands continue to receive healthcare cancellation notices. So far, at least 5 million Americans have lost their current healthcare plans because their insurance no longer meets the new standards set under Obamacare. With the continued rocky rollout of Obamacare, this year will see millions of individuals with small-group market plans, mostly provided by small businesses; lose coverage due to dramatic increases in healthcare premiums." [8]Foreign PolicyMy opponent basically ditched this by saying he will go more in depth next round, but that does make me suspicious. My opponent only used under 5,000 characters on a round with a limit of 10,000 characters. He could have put in a lot more on foreign policy that he didn't, which makes me suspicious that he might be holding off foreign policy so I don't have to respond.ConclusionNothing Ronald Reagan did during his presidency was wrong. Almost everything Obama has done has been a disaster. I feel that I should be awarded best convincing argument because I was specific and prove how Reagan was better at public policy than Obama was. At the same time, I should be awarded conduct for my opponent's lying, lack of use for one round, misuse of sources, and resorting to Wikipedia. Finally, I respectfully cited my sources and used highly respected economists.Sources1. Niskanen, William, and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." (n.d.): n. pag. Cato.org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. http://www.census.gov...3. Laffer, Arthur. "Revisiting the Reagan Tax Cuts." The Laffer Center. The Pacific Research Center, 2015. Web. 01 July 2015.4. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...5. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...6. https://research.stlouisfed.org...7. Hyman, Sean. "Why Stocks Don't Reflect the Economy." Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.8. Sumner, Scott. "Why the Fiscal Multiplier Is Roughly Zero." Mercatus on Policy (2013): 1-4. The Mercatus Center. George Mason University, Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.9. http://dailycaller.com...10. "SHRM Survey Findings: Health Care Reform - 2015 Update." SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. |
47 | bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00002-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework is beneficial for school students I invite you to quote your sources about the research you are talking about. First I would like to come back on what you said. If students are given extra-classes in Asia, or in any other country, that is in order to help those students who might have difficulties but still want to progress. Therefore, teachers giving those extra-classes will be there only to help the students, for instance with doing his homework. I doubt they also give extra-homework, unless if the students are really looking forward to delving into courses. Even in that case, I think that if a student gives up his studies it is because courses are too difficult for him or because he is not motivated enough but not because of homework he sometimes can't manage to do. Then, I would like to point out that homework such as exercises are great for the student because it gives him the possibility to put what he learnt into practice and to be sure he has understood the concepts seen in class. For example homework in mathematics or physics allow the student to move from abstract ideas and formulas to concrete examples. Afterwards when the homework get corrected, he will know whether he was right or wrong. In both cases it is beneficial as he can either be sure he understood or understand the mistake he made, not to make it again. Finally, it is generally agreed that working regularly leads to better results, the brain being able to memorize information easier if they are constantly repeated. That is one of the reasons why homework is beneficial to students, indeed it obliges the student to work when he is at home. Doing so, he will review what he learnt early on and it amounts to the same thing, that is to say to work in a constant way in order to better succeed. Last but not least, doing homework allows the student to develop skills such as a better organization, efficiency or memorising abilities. By way of conclusion, I can't see why would homework be something bad or useless, as its main goal is to help students getting better by raising the difficulties they could be facing and by consolidating what they are good at. Your rhymes, now. |
14 | 8f93a4a9-2019-04-18T12:16:13Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | The gay alelle IntroductionThe premise of this debate is that genes effect behavior, a concept which is not as well supported as my opponent would have us believe. Certainly it is possible that genes can have an influence on the mental capacity and emotional demeanor of a person, but to attribute abnormal sexual orientation solely to genetics is quite unfounded. Dr. Dean Hamer, author of the so-called "gay gene" study has concluded, "Homosexuality is not purely genetic. . .environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . ." (1). The problem with such a claim is the staggering complexity of genomic processes and the numerous variable environmental factors which may play a role in human behavior. According to Stanford professor of cognitive neuroscience J. J. Wine, ". . .no link has been established between the vast majority of genes and any psychological property. . ." no doubt due to the difficulties in tracing behavioral traits to an isolated gene or set of genes (2). Upon reviewing the relevant literature, law professor Lynn Wardle concludes, ". . .the knowledge base regarding the etiology of homosexuality-especially claims of biological immutability-is too immature and unsettled. . ." (1). With all that said, Pro must provide striking conclusive evidence that homosexuality is indeed caused by a "gay allele" which is turned on. Although unnecessary to win this debate, as it hinges on the efficacy of genes alone to determine behavior, I will provide some contributing factors to the phenomenon of human homosexuality.Traumatic Child AbuseSexually abused children are known to exhibit a number of psychological abnormalities as a consequence of their trauma, some of which include, ". . .damage to the victims' emotional reactions and self-perceptions, relationship problems, problems with sexuality and difficulties in social functioning" (3). It is easy to see how sexual abuse can cause a misappropriation of sexual attraction and confusion of sexual identity. According to chief of Child and Family Studies Centre, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry Dr. Joseph H. Beitchman, ". . .evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae. . ." including ". . .sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood. . ." (4). I am in no way claiming that all homosexuality is the result of sexual abuse, rather I am simply arguing that it is well documented that such abuse in children can result in abnormal sexual feelings and/or behavior.Social DevelopmentResearch has indicated that sexual orientation ". . .emerges from an interaction between sex drive development and social development during early adolescence" (5). With an influx of sexualized media and increasing social acceptance of homosexuality as normal or even desirable, it is clear to see that young children and teenagers developing in such a social environment are more readily apt to not become unsure of their sexual identity and to experiment sexually with others of the same sex. Simple differences in human personality or behavior may be interpreted as homosexual and may even be encouraged as such. This reinforcement of homosexuality can certainly be a primary contributing factor to the development of homosexual feelings and/or behavior in adolescents today. Social constructs of what is "straight" and what is "gay" run deep and, for example, a simple boy's preference for certain colors or fashion styles may be interpreted as gay and reinforced as such. This social programming can pressure one to identify as homosexual and/or may cause one to find it easier to "go with it." A "coming out of the closet" study found that, "Comfort with sexual orientation was greatest in persons with early patterns and lowest within the group with late trajectories and limited gay/lesbian/bisexual social immersion" (6). It is worth noting that, "committed homosexuals, lesbians, and gay males who see themselves as homosexual and adopt corresponding lifestyles, recall having acquired their homosexual identities" (7) [emphasis mine]. Given that sexually feelings or perceptions are not quantifiable and that the development of such is only made known upon a child or teenagers ability to comprehend their own sexual identity, social development must be considered as a primary causal factor. The Problem in Defining HomosexualityThe very concept of homosexual identity itself is unclear and many different views have been argued such as, "The synonymity of homosexual identity and self-concept: homosexual identity as childhood identity; homosexual identity as sexual identity; and homosexuality as a distinct essence" (8). It seems that if homosexuality is based upon a self-evaluation of one's own sexuality and thus subjective in nature, it cannot possibly be argued that homosexuality is a fixed outcome of genetic pre-disposition. Thus an adequate definition of homosexual identity is in order which sufficiently addresses this concern.ConclusionThe claim that a certain allele confers a propensity for homosexual feelings and/or behavior is speculative at best. It is certain that social development plays a crucial role in the formation of both sexual identity and behavior. Sexual abuse during childhood can also be a causal agent for the proliferation of homosexuality. The very idea of an immutable proclivity toward homosexuality is in serious question and thus awaits a profound and unequivocal vindication in the form of demonstrable scientific evidence.References1 - http://via.library.depaul.edu... 2 - http://web.stanford.edu... 3 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 4 - http://www.sciencedirect.com...;5 - http://psycnet.apa.org... 6 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 7 - http://www.tandfonline.com... 8 - http://www.tandfonline.com... |
2 | 24b396e9-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00016-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Safe seats will be reduced. All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority's votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011) |
42 | 218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00004-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull.A bull will charge at a moving cape without being previously infuriated, so the pre-fight torment can be removed. During the fight, the matador doesn't have to harm the bull until the end when it should be killed quickly and humanely. It can then be made into beef, sold, and eaten. With restrictions, bullfighting can become acceptable. |
30 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | 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 |
34 | 3563205b-2019-04-18T16:23:24Z-00008-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today Social media is not a cause for abbreviated terminology, the attention span of teens, and how people communicate effectively. Social media has enriched our lives, connected us on a level unlike society has ever been in past generations, and through the wide-spread use of the internet has taught so many aspects of what many once considered unattainable due to a worldwide connectivity of facts, opinions, and innovated ideas. It is in how people spend their time using social media, the application of what we gain from it that leaves no spectrum of right or wrong that defines a generation. The idea that something is either bad or good has developed a narrow-mindedness for the gift it can bring. Generalization, stereotyping, or seeing things as 'black and white' is the conflict. Feeling or thinking helpless to individualize your experience or mentoring those who you can touch by a better model for worldwide communication would aid the conflicting idea behind the impact it presents |
10 | 81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Mandatory Childhood Vaccines There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present. |
34 | d6443c53-2019-04-18T17:46:20Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Employers have the right to check possible employees Facebook or other social networking accounts 1: Social networking is a social, not a business networking account. No person should have the right to penalize someone for refusing to let them access to their home, address book, personal data assistant, cell phone, or for not having one since some people choose not to have an account. While social networking may promote businesses, and foster healthy business relationships the main premise is to socialize. People post ideas and beliefs on Social Networking sites that they don't act on, should there be access for potential bosses to subtly discriminate in hiring practices in an unethical and immoral manner without the person attempting to get the job being able to provide proof of discrimination. The premise of not mixing business with pleasure helps avoid lawsuits. If future employers want to build a close relationship as long as it doesn't harass their prospective employee it isn't bad, although it isn't smart business practice because it is risky and unethical as they are in a position of power. 2: While gathering insight into a person's character is laudable, behavioral cues, personal references, business references, background checks, etc. do wonders at aiding bosses from weeding out people they don't want working for them. The problem usually comes from those who are desperate for employees they will hire whomever, hiring those new to the workforce who are untested, or hiring someone without doing thorough research such as background checks. Social networking is a cheap way to gather information on someone's character without having to provide as much time, thought, and money. The energy expenditure of time, thought, and money help make a better basis for reasoned decisions as to who to hire, and how to manage a business. People who work at hiring the right person are more likely to hire the appropriate person for the job. 3: People lie for all sorts of reasons and this is prevalent on social networking sites. Getting an accurate portrayal of who someone is based on their social habits is inaccurate especially if they are only allowed restricted access. People will hide things and lie to strangers out of tact, politeness, and privacy while expose amazingly wonderful or horrendous things in private accesses of social networking sites. 4: Sharing things social networking sights is like welcoming someone into your home, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy according to Facebook terms and conditions, as a result you can keep the bedroom doors closed while opening the rest of the home to family and friends, and with acquaintances you can share your foyer,front yard, maybe back yard, and porch with conversation. Those without any access might be able see the home, yard, and porch, but not be privy to the conversations. Social networking sites have privacy practices that protect the account holders for these reasons. |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00001-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour The Cost of Living The problem with Pro's accusation is that he assumes I was arguing for abolishing the minimum wage. This is wrong, because I said no such thing. All I said was that it was ineffective, and it was better handled at the state or local level. Pro also seems to think that it was outside the scope of this debate, but no where in my resolution did I mention such a thing. All that is being argued is me opposing the $15 FEDERAL minimum wage. I can present any argument that I want, that shows that the United States of America shouldn't implement it. Pro says that I provided no data that shows a $15 dollar minimum wage causes unemployment, but how could I do that, when there isn't a National minimum wage? Instead I have shown minimum wage increases have resulted in unemployment, but Pro is ignoring that. Again, Pro is mistaking my arguments, and saying that a Federal Minimum wage isn't not decided by the states. That wasn't the point of my argument. It was to show that increasing the federal minimum wage is inefficient, but it something such as minimum wage is better handled at a state level. Pro is stating that the minimum wage is is designed to get a people to have a better standard of living, but he forget this is done at the expense of employees, who will soon be forced to pay people more than they are worth. Pro completely concedes my analogy with Des Moines and New York, on how a $15 dollar minimum wage doesnt take the cost of living into factor. Will lead to job lossPro is insisting that I provide an example of an employers. who fired people. When Wal-Mart hiked the minimum wage, it was expected it would fire 1000 employees. In another study, it showed that 38% of employers would fire workers if they were to hike the minimum wage to $10.10. Now you just need to imagine what that number would be if it were $15. Pro is saying that 52% of economists in that study support increasing the minimum wage , which is a complete lie. In the study itself, it only says 38% support increase the minimum wage. Now, we need to relook at this. What exactly is Pro proposing? A Federal $15 dollar minimum wage. If we use that criteria, only 16.7% support increasing by more than $1 per hour. However we don't actually know how high that number is, just it's more than $1. So it's likely that number is less than 16.7%. Having already refuted this argument, Pro clings onto the fact that several ecnonomists have supported President Obama's propsal to increase the minimum wage. I already mentioned that Obama's plan was to increase to $10.10, not $15. Pro's point ultimately falls flat because he has no evidence that shows ecnonomists would support a $15 minimum wage. Throughout the whole debate, he has cherry-picked economists that only either say increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause substancial loss or have said they support increasing it to a number much smaller than $15. Finally, Pro gives us some examples of employees who get paid a minimum wage somewhat closer to his proposed $15 minimum wage. I can relate to this much better than the examples he provided earlier, although this is technically an argument, and not a rebutall. So, what Pro provided us is a minimum wage increase on a local level. As I have said before, I'm not opposed to a minimum wage increase in local levels, because I already acknowledged that the cost of living is quite different in different states and cities. In a state such as San Francisco, it makes a lot of sense, because the cost of living there is quite high, compared to other cities. The problem is that if we were to implement it nation-wide, other states or cities with low cost of livings, will suffer from things such as unemployment and inflation, because their workers will be paid more money than they are generating money. Pro is now saying that there is no evidence for job loss from a $15 dollar minimum wage. That is true, but I have shown there is evidence for job loss during minimum wage hikes with several studies done by economists. I even showed that Alan Kreuger, an ecnonomist who did a minimum wage study in New Jersey, opposed the minimum wage to $15. Does very little to help the poorIn this argument Pro is stating that I support abandoning the minimum wage because it does very little to help the poor. But this isn't the point of that argument. I showed with evidence that a minimum wage hike actually does make it harder for the poor to enter the workplace, which Pro doesn't adresss. Somehow, me saying we shouldn't raise it to $15 translates to "WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH" On top of that, Pro says it's a fallacy, but he doesn't he take the time to tell what kind of fallacy I committed. So, Pro fails to refute the negative impacts of raising the minimium wage, and instead resorts to calling my argument a fallacy. Which in fact, is a fallacy itself. EITCWhile I'll agree that this isn't a minimum wage, it doesn't mean it is outside the scope of the debate. I didn't just say we should expand EITC, but I also said it works better than a minimum wage, because it doesn't bring along the negative impacts of the minimum wage. Con concedes that, and is saying we should expand both. David Card's studySo, earlier I said that the study didn't show proof that the minimum wage was a good thing. His reply is that those with the increase were happy with it. This isn't an acceptable rebutall, because who would be sad when they receive a pay raise? Why not just increase the minimum wage to $100, and those people will be even more happier. Does that mean it's a good thing? Not really. First of all I never said it was good science, and I'm not sure where Pro seems to get this from. And the point of my comment directly ties in with the comparision I made earlier with Des Moines and New York. The changes wouldn't be substancially different when compared to New Jersey and Pennslyania, but when we make it at Federal level, we see the problem it might cause. Pro has not refuted this. Pro says that I gave no reference to Alan Kreugers comment, but I clearly did. I gave a link to the comment, and I quoted his exact words. Also when Alan Kreguer made that comment, he was referring to Bernie Sander's proposal of $15. Bernie Sanders is running for president in 2016, so this comment is not outdated. Pro lies once again, and tries to present wrong information by saying he will assume this took place in 1992. Price IncreasesThis is precisely why I was confused in the beggining. I'm not sure why Pro is making arguments in my favor. But I'll go with it. Pro shows the prices of food items will go up, and this definetly doesn't indicate we should increase the minimum wage. Arguments Pro has concededA $15 Minimum wage create unemploymentThe minimum wage doesn't take the cost of living into factorEconomist such as Alan Kreuger are against it a $15 increase specificallyEITC will help people more than a $15 Minimum wageIncreasing the minimum wage will drive costs up in fast food restaurants60% of those in poverty aren't even workingThe majority of economists are against a raise, and support Abolishing itSources:. http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...http://www.zerohedge.com...http://www.breitbart.com... I urge voters to vote Con, because I have shown the harmful impacts of raising the Federal minimum wage to $15, and I also provided a much better solution in the form of a tax break, which would work better than a minimum wage in reducing poverty. |
26 | 828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized testing is a good thing I appreciate my opponent's response.I will address your counterarguments:PARCC tesing: The PARCC is only being used officially by a small group of states (approx. 15) as well as D.C..[1] As stated, standardized tests are a false, superficial measure of assesment. As you alluded to by stating, " The questions on standardized testing are not meant to measure deep and creative thinking - they are to measure if you can understand a math problem or read a passage correctly and understand that." If these tests are supposedly meant to prepare students for mcollege and careers, how can they omit assessment of creative or complex thinking. While you may think deep or analytical thinking cannot be aquired at any school, I assert that it depends on the school and the teacher. Focusingh on standardized testing and how to work the computer that administers the test does interfere with such endeavors. Although fairly new, the tests are already being criticized by parents, teachers, students and administrators.Here are some responses:Parents and teachers flooded Wednesday's open public testimony session to complain about the new tests, which will be administered to all students in grades 3-11 in March and again in May. Some held "No PARCCING" signs. Others pulled their children out of class to have them testify.Marie Corfield, a teacher in Flemington, said the combination of the new Common Core standards and the implementation of PARCC tests has teachers "overwhelmed, stressed to the breaking point." "I feel like I'm living in a bad dream and can't wake up," Corfield said.[2] Some schools have downsized or closed their libraries to make room for more computers that can be used for testing, said Arlen Kimmelman, president of the New Jersey Assocation of School Libraries. While the addition of more technology may seem beneficial, students don't know how to use it if the libraries aren't open for them to meet with librarians, Kimmelman said. "The testing shouldn't be squeezing out school library sources that are needed for students to be college and career ready," Kimmelman said.[2] a sixth-grader...isn't planning to take the exams. PARCC takes time away from classes that teach students to be creative, original, intelligent and brave, she said. "Unfortunately testifying in front of the State School Board isn't all fun and games, because I will now have go write up a report about my experience here today and present it to my social studies class,"..."There are no standardized answers for this kind of education. "[2] Jacob Hartmann...said he doesn't feel teachers are truthful about the importance of the tests, which are planned to eventually become a graduation requirement. Some teachers have said PARCC tests aren't important, but others have told students their performance will impact their future. "I'm more than positive that if I do decide to attend Princeton, they will not be asking about my PARCC scores," Hartmann said.[2] Screens freezing was only one of several common complaints about the PARCC field tests at schools across the state. ..88.4 percent of school administrators in the state expressed "anxiety" about the forthcoming PARCC tests, citing as major issues computers that either didn't work or logged students out without warning, and confusing instructions. Shutz blames the freezing screens on inadequate computers and poorly designed software. "Half the problems were with the test, and half were with our technology," she says.[3] Standardized test objectivity: The PARCC test are no more objective than previous standardized tests. While the grading is computerized, the questions are created by humans and thus prone to bias. Standardized test reliability: These tests are always more focused on memorization and regurgitation of information than grasping the concepts involved. Differences (amongst scores): The scoring methods are not reliable, inasmuch as differences in score do not necessarily illustrate differences in ability or comprehension between test takers. Bias: The bias that is being referred to is bias inherent in the test itself. This is often referred to as cultural bias. Here are some related issues: Schools at times suspend, expel, "counsel out" or otherwise remove students with low scores in order to boost school results and escape test-based sanctions mandated by the federal government's "No Child Left Behind" law, at great cost to the youth and ultimately society. "although in recent years test makers have attempted to address concerns about test bias by establishing review committees to 'scour' the tests for bias, and by using statistical procedures, significant problems remain in the content of the questions, the cultural assumptions inherent in the 'wanted' answers, etc." Discriminatory item selection:Jay Rosner, executive director of the Princeton Review Foundation, which provides test preparation programs for the college-entrance Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), reported in 2003 that potential SAT questions which are answered correctly more often by black students than white students are rejected by the test makers. This was apparently done to assure that test results (showing African-Americans scoring lower than whites) would be "consistent" from year to year. Outright racism:A series of questions on the 2006 global history New York State Regents exam asked students to describe how Africa "benefitted" from imperialism. Using this 150-year-old quote: "We are endeavoring … to teach the native races to conduct their own affairs with justice and humanity, and to educate them alike in letters and in industry," students were asked to name "two ways the British improved the lives of Africans." Socio-economic bias masquerading as cultural diversity:The 2006 New York State Regents third grade reading practice test used the example of African-American tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams to ask children questions about tennis "doubles" and country clubs. Lack of cultural awareness:A Latina "bias reviewer" caught this item while reviewing questions prepared for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. "I remember one question that showed a picture of a couch on a porch and asked, 'What doesn't fit?' " she says. "I started laughing…the way I grew up, everyone had a couch outside."[4] Standardized tests :knowledge' accuracy: My opponent states, "The test covers the whole cirriculum that the student needs to know and understand." Perhaps, but from who's perpsective. Standardized test assume that everyone learns in the same manner. This is not always the case. Standardized test (achievement): I cited my source. It mentions how Finland uses thes techniques rather than large scale standardized testing. "...Standardized achievement test scores should be regarded as rough approximations of a student's status with respect to the content domain represented by the test. For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education. The overarching reason that students' scores on these tests do not provide an accurate index of educational effectiveness is that any inference about educational quality made on the basis of students' standardized achievement test performances is apt to be invalid. Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon. Tablespoons have a different measurement mission than indicating how hot or cold something is. Standardized achievement tests have a different measurement mission than indicating how good or bad a school is. Standardized achievement tests should be used to make the comparative interpretations that they were intended to provide. They should not be used to judge educational quality."[6] Basically standardized test measure how well inequality, classism and segregation in schools has worked. Standardized Test (Teacher support): It depends on the teacher. Many teachers do not support the tests or the testing. Standardized Test (Stakes): There should be no punishment for teachers until school are standardizedf and offered the same amount of support. Why should a teacher responsible for 30+ students be expected to perform at the same level as a teacher responsible for 15-20 (on average)? Standardized Test (high stakes): Threatening to fire teachers or take away school funding is high stakes. Students that are suspected to perform poorly on these tests are suspended. Standardized Test (Ability): Finland uses these test at the secondary level, yet, do not solely depend on them for assessment. Here are some suggested reasons why Finland excels in education: - The Finnish school system uses the same curriculum for all students. - Students have light homework loads. - Finnish schools do not have classes for gifted students. - Finland uses very little standardized testing. - Finland has a comprehensive preschool program that emphasizes "self-reflection" and socializing, not academics. - Grades are not given until high school, and even then, class rankings are not compiled. - School funding is higher for the middle school years, the years when children are most in danger of dropping out. - College is free in Finland.[5] Standardized Test (Racism): As stated, the racism is in the development of the tests, not the scoring. Standardized tests assume that all sttudents learn the same and have had the same quality education. This is a flawed assumption. I await my opponent's response. http://www.parcconline.org... [1]http://www.nj.com... [2]http://njmonthly.com... [3]http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.ascd.org... [6] |
14 | 7c3403c3-2019-04-18T19:06:43Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda. The Actual Resolution: Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children since this is a policy that would be in the best interests of children, families, and society as a whole. Further, arbitrarily denying certain couples the ability to adopt children because of their sexual orientation is simply unacceptably detrimental to the aims of a civil society, and it is a position that is perpetuated by nothing other than flagrant discrimination. Of course, people's ignorance plays a large role in this matter. Some people have come to believe – almost invariably on bad evidence – that there is something fundamentally wrong with the minds of gay people. It's likely that many factors play into this sort of thinking, however, the point remains; many of the views people have about gays are simply not based on science, reason or empirical data. While some scientists may disagree about particular aspects of certain theories regarding sexual orientation, one thing is now universally agreed upon by the psychological and medical experts who specialize on this subject: there is nothing psychologically, emotionally, socially, mentally or morally wrong with people that are gay, and one's sexual orientation is mainly not a conscious choice. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that gay couples should not be allowed to raise children. C1: Evidence indicates that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that is not consciously chosen. There is nothing about gay individuals that makes them inadequate parents, and thus there is no reason to suppose that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children. And despite what many deeply pious (i.e. ignorant) people may believe, there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexual orientations are anything other than normal and healthy variations of human nature. In fact, compelling evidence and recent scientific studies from both neuroscience and psychology now confirm this notion to an astonishing degree. Indeed, many of the negative ideas that people have held over the years about homosexuality are simply unsupportable in light of the mounds of evidence that has come forth on this subject. Luckily, the evidence that is being called upon can be found everywhere. As a result, there are good reasons to suppose that the sexual preference gays hold will not negatively impact their life or character. As it turns out, there is now compelling evidence – especially the evidence coming from neuroscience research – which indicates that a person's sexual orientation is determined in large part by the structure of their mind. For example, recent functional neuro-imaging experiments done by Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstr�m indicate two human pheromones - the progesterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and an estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3-5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) – arouse sexual orientation specific responses that are key to activating the neural circuits of the anterior hypothalamus of those with a heterosexual and homosexual orientation. [1] To give some background information, it is important to point out that the anterior hypothalamus has been shown to be essential in integrating sensory cues that are involved in sexual behavior and sexual preference. Further, the study in question demonstrated that the anterior hypothalamus of the gay men in the experiment responded much in the same way to the pheromone (AND) that the anterior hypothalamus of heterosexual women did. Consequently, it is now fairly certain that one's sexual preference is largely involuntarily acquired, because it is not reasonable to believe that any person can willfully control the way in which their brain responds to electrochemical stimuli. If it were true that a person's sexual orientation were entirely a choice, then there should be no such correlations in the neural patterns between gay men and heterosexual females with respect to their sexual preference. Therefore, the evidence aforementioned demonstrates with much certainty that a person's mind does play a large role in determining whether that person is gay or straight. Some may be ignorant of these facts, but the evidence is clear; sexual orientation is not determined in large part by a conscious choice. Additionally, organizations with the most educated insights on this subject such as, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and The National Academy of Social Workers all agree on this topic: homosexuality is a normal orientation that should not be treated or viewed as a mental disorder, and sexual orientation is not a choice. [2] In particular, The National Institute of Mental Health did various scientific studies regarding homosexuality. [3] In the data that was accumulated by them, they determined that their "subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation." In light of these findings, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 while maintaining that, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." [3] Later on, after they reviewed the data from this research, The American Psychological Association followed suit and adopted the same view, with other science organizations following them shortly thereafter. [3] Thus, it should be obvious that homosexuality is not some sort of mental disorder that leads to adverse affects in gay individuals. Given these facts, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be anxious about gay couples adopting children; they are just as normal, virtuous, and well-adjusted as anyone else. ::Conclusion:: Not allowing two people to adopt a child based on their sexual preference is nothing more than an arbitrary form of discrimination. This is especially true since it is now clear that gay people's sexual preference is both normal and not subject to change. Simply put, there is no process of ratiocination, religious or otherwise, that can justifiably demonstrate why children should be denied access to the loving homes and families that gay couples can provide. Moreover, the "homosexual agenda," if such a thing even exists, is in no way something that should be opposed or feared. For thousands of years gay couples have been the victims of gay bashing (both figuratively and literally). It is, therefore, imperative that society takes steps to protect this vulnerable minority group and also insure that they have equal protections under the law. And allowing them to adopt children that need loving families will bring the world one step closer to actualizing this goal. Sources: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. YouTube - Gay Education. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 21 May 2010. . 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
17 | 6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00007-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal Round 1 is stricly for acceptance and please no rebuttal in Round 2 , Round 2 is for explaining your views, Don't accept if you joined a day or a few days ago because than i cannot be sure that you don't forget about this debate. |
19 | c939de25-2019-04-18T19:28:00Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Homosexual Marriage First, I would like to say that it is an honor to be debating one of the best debaters on this site. I hope I can clarify my points further in this round, I know my previous points may have been sketchy. For this round, I would like to start off by telling the audience to look at the websites The Skeptic has for his proof. The Skeptic may think this is irrelevant to the debate, but 75% of his sources come from wikipedia.org. Anyone can post pages of biased information or research on there, and if that's where he found most of his facts or proof, then they are most likely invalid and should be excluded from the debate. I would appreciate it if you do not use wikipedia.org, for it is not a reliable source. It has probably influenced some of your debate, and created a biased statistic or proof on your part. Thank you. Now onto my arguments: (I will make my numbers match his subtitles that start with Con Claims:) 1. Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms. The Skeptics says "The entire issue at hand is whether or not marriage should include homosexuals, which I am obviously contending. This argument is no more but a red herring." I guess you didn't read my argument. My point of saying that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman is that homosexuals in marriage would make it of the same sex, not opposite sex of one man and one woman! Hence, it would ruin the definition of marriage, which is precisely why marriage should not include homosexuals. By definition, heterosexual couples can get married, and by definition homosexuals cannot. 2. Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society. The Skeptic quotes "I argue that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be legalized as well. The only requirement for people(s) to get married is that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Case solved!" Case not solved! Are you insane? The only requirement for people(s) to get married is not that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Where did you get that definition? I know I have repeated this in the other argument, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. You give no proof on how incestuous and polygamous marriages would be beneficial or why they should really be allowed. Your definition does not include the entire definition of marriage. You don't even state where you found this fallacy. My whole point of saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy and zoophilia is that gay marriage would defy the traditional definition of marriage and make love the main requirement to get married. Hence, it would lead to the acceptance of polygamy and zoophilia because it would be acceptable for groups of people and animals and people to get married ONLY IF THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. How could this be acceptable? People would begin getting married to their cars, just as long as they love them right? You find nothing wrong with that? I would ruin the specialness of marriage and make marriage unimportant. (P.S. the crime rates are also irrelevant to the topic) 3. Marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society. The Skeptic writes that marriage is becoming less and less common now, so he asks why is being in a relationship now viable. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is completely irrelevant. I said that marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society because when one man and one woman get married, they have the possibility and potential to create a family with however many kids. All heterosexual couples who get married have the chance or opportunity to have kids and create a family. However, homosexual couples who get married have absolutely no possibility of having children with one another. The Skeptic may say why does this matter? They can adopt, can't they? What does the essence of family have to do with it. Well first, I would like to say that society grows and prospers due to the natural reproduction of children. Many heterosexual couples wait until marriage to have sex and make children, so it obviously does matter. And the thing about adoption is just absurd. Yeah, gay couples can adopt, but if gay marriage continues to grow and get accepted, gay couples will continuously adopt children until there aren't too many left. The main argument for this one was that heterosexual couples in marriage can create a family and hand down their traditions and customs, which helps further society by creating more children and having their traditions be respected. Gay couples in marriage can't create kids. I just want to say this comes back to one of my main points. Gay couples naturally cannot reproduce, so wouldn't that send an alarm signal saying that gay couples aren't supposed to be together hence shouldn't be married? Gay men and gay women have no possibility of reproducing or leaving their "legacy" to their own child. Normal nature proves that gay marriage should not be. The Skeptic then challenges me to describe how two men or women doing it privately will affect the infrastructure of society. Since The Skeptic did not refer to gay marriage in this rebuttal, I cannot infer what he was asking me to say or do. Hence, his argument should be invalid. If he wants me to answer him in the following round, he needs to directly address gay marriage. However, he does come around to asking me "How exactly does stamping the label "married" and giving beneficial rights to a gay couple bring the end of society?" You seem to only think that directly this does not affect society. But how about we think about how it will affect the future? The acceptance of gay marriage leads people to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. It will destruct the morals and ethics of society by leading people to believe and accept gay marriage, which is against the institution of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to the wearing down of the morals and principles of people in society. It may not directly affect one person, but it will indirectly influence many people in society eventually. 4. Gays can't become "sexually whole" or "one"/they can't sexually reproduce. "To others, it may simply be a pragmatic way to live together as a couple." Can't gay people live together as a couple without being married? Heterosexual couples do that all the time, as well do homosexual couples. So ha! You have just said that gay people can live together as a couple without being married, so you support my side that they shouldn't be married. You also say that whatever the purpose of marriage was originally it doesn't matter. Well it kind of does matter. The original purpose of marriage may have been changed and altered to get our present definition of being a union between one man and one woman, so it is once again supporting my argument that gay marriage should not be allowed. "If you said that sexually reproducing is natural, then you commit yet another fallacy- the appeal to nature." I am simply saying that if you look at the nature of gays, they cannot reproduce or create anything (that has the potential of life-a child) together. Natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowable. 5. Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage. You give no counterargument. You actually agree with me it's hard for society to bend its thinking-all you do is call me a cultural relativist- you present no case, hence it should be another vote for con 6. Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay. The whole argument about this is that if more people are opened up to it and revealed to it, it opens their mind to gay marriages and gay people-they would find nothing wrong with being gay themselves. And you conclude by saying I must show why homosexuality is wrong. No. Only homosexual marriage. I will address this later. Than |
23 | 41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Should assisted suicide be legal The helper would still spend time in jail/community service/ mental institutions so why help? Thank you. |
24 | 72004c60-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Flat Tax No definitions were given, so I will bestow the definition of "Flat Tax". [1] Flat Tax- a tax system in which all income, regardless of level, is taxed at the same rateI will be arguing that implementing a flat tax out weights the benefits of implementing a flat tax. Goodluck! :)Source:[1] . http://www.bing.com... |
41 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00006-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits BenefitsAs the majority of this debate will come down to weighing costs versus benefits, we first must know the benefits of a college education. "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years, and excluding those graduates with advanced degrees, calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. " (. http://www.insidehighered.com...) (his actual report can be downloaded here: . http://chronicle.com...)Monetary Costs"This year, according to the College Board, average published in-state tuition and fee plus room/board charges exceed $17,000 at four-year public institutions. " (. http://www.cnn.com...) At four year private institutions, this number is roughly $11,500 annually. (in the Charles Miller report). Students are forced finance these costs with large loans, resulting in a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars by graduation. "Two-thirds of bachelor's degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The effect of this debt goes far beyond decreasing the lifetime earnings of a college graduate. Collegeboard now reports that the average age by which student loan debt is paid back stands at 33. (. http://www.soundmindinvesting.com...). This greatly limits what can be done by graduates within the first 11 years of their working life. "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. " (. http://chronicle.com...) Opportunity CostTo show that opportunity cost outweighs the monetary benefits of a college education, one must show that there is a better way to spend the money which can not be achieved by going to college. This can be done fairly easily with investing potential. Using the average savings rates, cost of college tuition, student loan interest rates, and investment returns, an individual who invests their college fund instead of spending it will earn $1.3 million by the age of 65. A typical four year college graduate "will have less than a third of that. " (. http://www.nypost.com...) There are other, similar methods of investment, all of which will result in more money than a college education. Another form of opportunity cost is the 4-6 years of lost job experience while attending college. With more and more job opportunities opening for those without college degrees, the 4-6 years of additional training and chances for promotion may very well outweigh the $279,893 monetary benefit of college. This job experience can also be gained while investing in the previous scenario. Shrinking Benefits of a College EducationRecent graduates, which excludes graduates over the age of 25 who where able to find a job before the economic downturn, now have roughly the same unemployment rate as non-degree holders. "Over the past year, for example, the unemployment rate for college grads under age 25 has averaged 9.2 percent, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier and 5.8 percent in the first year of the recession that began in December 2007. That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. It also suggests that many employed recent grads may be doing work that doesn't require a college degree. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The majority of college graduates that do find a job are often underemployed, working as waiters food-service helpers. "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, the Associated Press reported this weekend. .. According to the Census, the number of Americans under the age of 25 with at least a bachelor's degree has grown 38 percent since 2000. Not nearly enough jobs have been created to accommodate them, which has resulted in falling wages for young college graduates in the past decade, as well as the employment problems we're now seeing. " (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With food preparation and service receiving the largest job growth between 2000 and 2010, the job opportunities for non-degree holders are only increasing. In fact, "among the top 10 with respect to actual job growth, 3 will require a postsecondary degree and only 1 will require a BA. " (. http://www.educationalpolicy.org...) The Risks of Attending CollegeThe risk one takes while attaining their college degree is the most important cost to be considered in this debate. These two risks, defaulting on student loan debt and dropping out, go hand in hand. In the United States, only 46% of all students who started college managed to complete it. "The "Pathways to Prosperity" study by the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2011 shows that just 56 percent of college students complete four-year degrees within six years. " (. http://www.reuters.com...) College dropouts are forced to pay back their debt, but without the benefits of receiving a college degree. Dropouts gain a very minimal increase in wages, and spend years of their lives with nothing to show for it except debt. Default rates are also abysmally high. 19.2% of "borrowers who graduated with a certificate from a for-profit, less-than-four-year institution" defaulted on their student loans. (. http://www.educationsector.org...) "A recent study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that for every borrower who defaults, at least two more fall behind in payments. The study found that only 37 percent of borrowers who started repaying their student loans in 2005 were able to pay them back fully and on time. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) Student debt overall has now reached over $1 trillion, more than credit card debt. (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With student loans unable to be forgiven through bankruptcy, and with defaulting resulting in tax refunds being offset and wages being garnished, a college education is a high-risk, low-benefit investment. |
16 | b6bf8417-2019-04-18T13:41:19Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | should drugs be legal Drugs should be legal because the majority of deaths involving drugs are due to selling them illegally. |
34 | 19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Thanks for this debate and good luck: DEFINITIONS: -Impact -From: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) -"To have a direct effect or impact on." Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro. -Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win. -Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States. A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool. - Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No… Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively. B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites. -How can something have a 'direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything. In the end of this debate, ask yourself… Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer? Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer? Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun? Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun? Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool. ====================================================== Onto my opponents case: 1. I accept the definition (of Social Networking Site) as a way Social Networking sites could be viewed. Although, there can be multiple interpretations, I will not be abusive and I will accept this as the general purpose of a Social Networking site. 2. I will urge the voters to use both definitions of impact. Use my opponents as the "how much" and use my definition as the "how." In other words, his points out to a strong effect while mine points to a direct effect. And since these are mutually inclusive, use them both to determine if PRO has met both of them. Onto the arguments now: 1. Economy (and the business advertisement argument)--> A) The economic benefits simply transfered. -You have to acknowledge the simple fact that Social Networking Sites bring in revenue to other companies (debate.org being one of those). However, this revenue transfered from previous popular advertisement locations (such as newspaper and billboards). And although those are still used, they have decreased in popularity while Social Networking sites have balanced it out. Therefore, the economy really didn't benefit as much as my opponent claims. The article (of the link below) shows how search engines may die because of social networking sites, which is a huge amount of income. B) If anything, the economy got worse. -What happens when one location begins to receive all advertisement revenue? Simply, they begin to dominate the market. AND, they begin to pocket it. Both of these have a negative effect since dominating the market will simply lead to people only going there to advertise. This will increase the amount of revenue they get, thus they can begin to 'save' it for whatever reason. Once they save it, the flow of money seizes and the economy actually suffers. C) If it did get better, it is because people used the tool well. -The biggest argument my opponent will have to deal with is the fact that "social networking sites" did not have a direct impact on the market, rather the intelligent businessmen did. Social Networking Sites are something we made up, a simple tool of possibility, but as we all know, Social Networking Sites can be used for bad as well. For example: -From PC MAGAZINE ONLINE, July 22, 2008, pNA, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP -QUOTE: "With more and more kids communicating online, Internet bullying has become a larger issue. About 22 percent of kids said they have friends who have been bullied online." Also: -From Jessica S. Groppe; Catholic U. Law School; COMMLAW CONSPECTUS; 2007; ONLINE; LEXIS-NEXIS; p. 218 -QUOTE: "In over half of these incidents solicitors request photographs of youth, and in twenty-seven percent of such occurrences solicitors ask for sexual photographs. These pornographic depictions involve abusive activities that "exacerbate the already vulnerable status of children" who consequently become mere sexual objects in pornographic work. Compliance with solicitor's pornographic requests often results from youths who lack the prudence or maturity to understand the implications or consequences of such pictures. Children's meager knowledge of the nature of sexual acts bolsters the fact that children cannot meaningfully consent to participating in child pornographic activities, and thus, suffer harm from its production." From this you can see that the economy is little to no benefit. ESPECIALLY when you weigh it against the benefits of sexual predators and how they can use it as a tool to further abuse the children of America. Just ask the father of the raped daughter what he thinks about the better economy that we got because of a social networking site. Again, it's all how you use it. 2. Democracy--> -Here is just one example of how it could be used as a good tool. However, on top of this, you also have a HUGE increase in the abuse of the candidates. For example, Obama got made fun of and slandered against. And McCain was a war monger because of videos that were put up on the internet. OH... and maybe people even PMed each other with a plot to kill them. All made possible because of Social Networking Sites. 3. Terrorism (and 1/2 under it)--> -Also, a good parent-child relation is good for fighting immature adolescent behavior. However, because of social networking sites, we don't have that either. -From Kaveri Subrahmayam & Patricia Greenfield; Professors of Psychology at Cal State U. and UCLA; THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN; Spring 2008; p. 119 -QUOTE: "Qualitative evidence is starting to accumulate that social networking sites such as MySpace are ausing serious parent-child conflicts and loss of parental control. Rosen's interviews with parents revealed several typical problems. For example, a boy who failed to do his homework before midnight because he was on MySpace reacted to his parent's efforts to curtail his use of MySpace by sneaking back online." -Not to mention that I have already proven that the economy is not necessarily better because of Social Networking Sites. Furthermore, you will see that the economy is bad BECAUSE of the War on Terrorism (in part anyway): -From: http://www.cfr.org... -QUOTE: "By contrast, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, which estimated a $3.5 trillion cost through 2017, say the war will cost the average U.S. family $46,400. Per person, the total cost, given these estimates, would be $11,627, or $830 per year." Through this, you will see that my opponents arguments are irrelevant. It ALL depends on use. Therefore, I urge you to vote CON! Thanks for this debate! |
46 | 877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00004-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality laws. Ok i'll forfeit I don't care. Everytime I see a debate where someone says it's impossible to accept and I can I always do cause it's funny to me. |
19 | c6b95312-2019-04-18T18:29:26Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone I accept this debate and will argue why Gay marriage is not beneficial to everyone...... Emphasis on EVERYONE and BENEFICIAL...First the Pro's arguments - 1 - Economy: Gay marriage would benefit the economy, I wont contest that - 2 - Social Justice?:"would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run"I dont think this is true. Religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, have routinely denounced and criticized scientific facts and social movements since the Middle Ages. These are the same religious institutions that stubbornly refused to believe the Earth revolved around the Sun, that witchcraft was fake, that Muslims were evil, etc. If Gay Marriage were legalized, it would be the latest slap to the face of long standing religious institutions. These religious institutions would immediately denounce gay marriage, and then as time progressed and people grew comfortable with gay marriage as a reality, they would look back and ridicule the church for protesting something so fiercely. - 3 - Marriage is a fundamental rightI do not deny this, but the point of this debate for me is to prove how NOT everyone would benefit everyone. List of people who would not be befitted from Gay Marriage - Normal People - How would gay marriage actually benefit any one person individual person? many people would be rather unaffected by gay marriage being legalized and thus wouldnt "benefit" from it - Homophobes - Gays walking around everywhere would be their nightmare - Racists - These guys sh*t on gays all the time, if Gay Marriage were legal then racists would be very annoyed - Conservatives - NOT ALL OF THEM. But there are some who are against gay marriage and if it were legalized conservatives would feel upset, well some of them - Anti Gay Groups - These groups would have lost the battle, something that would annoy them forever - Anti Gay Authors - Authors who have books denouncing gay marriage would see sales plummet if gay marriage were to be legalized - Ignorant Bigots - There are people who make an opinion and stick to it no matter how dumb or stupid it may be (Glenn Beck), those who denounce Gay Marriage would spend their lives denouncing it and how this country is going to hell, and that hate speech would piss off a lot of people - Comedians - Comedians who have jokes about how Gay marriage is normal and poke fun at other anti-gay groups would lose a lot of material if gay marriage were legalized. - Parents - If gay marriage were legal, kids would come out to their parents more often and more freely, some would be upset - Idiots - Idiots who think that Gays are the reason AIDS is around would be very traumatized by gay marriage being legalized because they think that AIDS would start spreading more, even though that is a complete lie only idiots believe I have named some groups of people who would be HARMED by gay marriage, but i would like to remind voters that the debate is whethor or not gay marriage is BENEFICIAL to everyone, so he has the BOP to show that we all BENEFIT from Gay Marriage.Unaffected by it =/= beneficial to people |
8 | d284979-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal in all instances Women always have the right to choose whether or not to have children, and I think this extends into abortion. |
41 | c8121560-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00003-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Social Security Cuts If we are that desprate to reduce the federal debt than Congress ought to seriously consider cutting the DOD 2011 BUDGET OF $928.5 Billion dollars. There is no need for Congress to immediatly attack SS and Medicare when deciding what to cut from the budget to lower the National Debt. I have heard arguments from both sides of the isle in both Houses and I feel that the logical idea would be to requst each federal agency to cut their own budget by 10% every year for 5 years. Another program that Congress ought to consider cutting from the budget is $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies. President Obama has sent congress a list of Programs he is comfortable of Congress cutting fromt he budget to lower the Debt. The list includes: ■$18 billion in cuts deemed unnecessary by the Pentagon ■$13 billion from funding for programs at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services ■$8 billion in cuts for State and Foreign Operations ■$2.5 billion in transportation funding ■Over $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies ■$630 million in earmarked transportation projects ■$35 million by ending the Crop Insurance Good Performance Rebate for subsidized insurance premiums ■$30 million for a job training for specific certain student loan processors ■Reductions to housing assistance programs ■Reductions to some health care programs If I were a member of Congress (regardless) of political party, I would seriously consider the list of recommendations submitted by President Obama |
2 | 657ed681-2019-04-18T19:12:04Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans. This drug should stay illegal for many reasons concerning the health and safety of Americans today. Saying no one ever died from smoking marijuana is like saying no one ever died from smoking tobacco. Today research shows that nearly 50 percent of teenagers try marijuana before they graduate from high school. Most young teens and children start using marijuana for many reasons, they are curious, or want to fit in to a specific group of kids. Most young people who already smoke cigarettes and/or use alcohol are at higher risk for marijuana use. Most young people say they use marijuana to deal with psychological problems such as, anger, boredom, depression, anxiety, etc. As much as young people think marijuana is helping their problems, its only making things worse for their bodies and minds. When using marijuana, some users suffer acute anxiety and have paranoid thoughts, this mainly occurs with some one new to the drug or in a strange environment. In some cases, a user who has taken a very high dose of marijuana can have severe psychotic symptoms and need emergency help. Marijuana delay's the user's short term memory, which means they may have trouble handling simple or complex tasks. Due to the effects that marijuana has on the mind, the user my find themselves in a difficult situations such as they could become involved in risky sexual behavior or take part in auto crashes. When you smoke marijuana and then drive or even perform both, many of the skills required for safe driving, may be changed such as, alertness, concentration, coordination and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana may also make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road. A recent study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had alcohol in they're system. Marijuana can direct the human mind to make wrong or a dangerous choice but it also can damage our bodies. The body can be damaged, just as easy as the mind loses its control over the choices it makes. Findings so far show that the regular use of marijuana or THC may play a role in cancer and problems in the respiratory, immune system, and reproductive systems. It is hard to find out whether marijuana alone causes cancer because many people who smoke marijuana smoke cigarettes and use other drugs. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Studies have shown that five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes a day. Tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke may work together to change the tissues lining the respiratory tract. Marijuana smoking could contribute to early development of head and neck cancer in some people. Cases of cancer, including cancer of the mouth, tongue, larynx, jaw, head, neck, and lungs have been reported in young marijuana smokers. Our immune system protects the body from many diseases, when marijuana is smoked it impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs, causing someone with a disease more susceptible to other illnesses or diseases. Continued us of marijuana can lead to abnormal function of the lungs or airways. Scientists have found signs of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke. Marijuana and tobacco both cause many of the same breathing problems, both of them are addictive. While not everyone who uses marijuana becomes addicted, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug frequently they're known to be dependent on the drug. A withdrawal syndrome occurs, consisting of anxiety, depression, sleep and appetite disturbances, irritability, tremors, diaphoresis, nausea, muscle convulsions, and restlessness. Some serious users of marijuana show signs of dependence because when they do not use the drug, they develop withdrawal symptoms. Some users experiencing marijuana withdrawal had symptoms, such as restlessness, loss of appetite, trouble with sleeping, weight loss, and shaky hands. According to one study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior serious antisocial problems can quickly lead to dependence on the drug. That study also found that, for troubled teenagers using tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, progression from their first use of marijuana to regular use was about as rapid as their progression to regular tobacco use, and more rapid than the progression to regular us of alcohol. Researchers are not certain whether a newborn baby's health problems are caused by marijuana will continue as the child grows. Preliminary research shows that children born to mothers who used marijuana regularly during pregnancy may have trouble concentrating. Doctors advise pregnant women not to use any drugs because they might harm the growing fetus. Some scientific studies have found that babies born to marijuana users were shorter, weighed less, and had smaller head sizes than those born to mothers who did not use the drug. When a nursing mother uses marijuana, some of the THC is passed to the baby in her breast milk. This is a matter for concern, since the THC in the mother's milk is much more concentrated than that in the mother's blood. This along with the other information on how marijuana is harmful gives us another reason for not legalizing it. Marijuana should not be legalize for the safety of Americans and their health. Marijuana destroys the minds of many users. All parts of the body especially the immune system are damaged from marijuana. Marijuana can cause many of the same illnesses cigarettes cause. So in conclusion I believe that for the well being of the American people marijuana should stay illegal to ensure the safety of our future. --------------------- Habakkuk 3:17-18 |
42 | 7788e233-2019-04-18T19:46:45Z-00001-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Chewing gums should be allowed in schools. While as you say that gum chewing improves test scores for those chewing, but for those beside those chewing it will lower test scores. The student not chewing will be forced to listen to the other chewing the gum, unable to do anything about it because they are taking a test. Therefore, by allowing gum chewing to go on in schools, test scores are neither increasing nor decreasing, but remaining the same. Thus, there is no benefit for it there. When sitting in class students do not usually have the opportunity or, in some cases, the proper manners to ask the student to dispose properly of the gum. And I have never personally heard or heard from others, of teachers calling a student out for chewing gum. As for the placement of gum under and on objects besides trashcans, have you ever stuck your hand in gum? Chances are that you have. Everyone has at one point or another. The fact is that students do not get out of their seat to properly dispose of their gum, they stick it under desks. If gum were not stuck under desks then scrapping the gum off of the desks would not be a form of punishment for students for various reasons. In the country of Singapore Chewing Gum has been banned. This is a true example of how gum can be banned altogether. Below is an article about the punishment for being caught chewing the gum. The article proves that if banning gum in a country is possible then it is most definitely possible in schools. Chewing gum laws in Singapore explained (for you foreigners) Bert '07 (Bert lives in Singapore, (http://indianstallion.blogspot.com...) "You will be prosecuted for chewing gum trafficking if you try to smuggle more than 1 kg of chewing gum through customs. The rationale is that you can't obviously be bringing in 1kg for personal consumption. The punishment for chewing gum trafficking is up to 1 year in prison and/or 5 strokes of the cane. If you are caught dealing chewing gum in Singapore the sentence is similar, and is even harsher if you are caught dealing to minors. However, in most cases, if you co-operate with the authorities and reveal your suppliers you might get off with a significantly lighter sentence. After all, they would rather nab the big syndicates then a small time dealer. You might even have to go assist in covert operations so that they can catch the syndicates in the act. The type of chewing gum you are caught with also determines your sentence, Wrigley's peppermint gum carries the heaviest sentence because it's the hardest to remove from park benches, roads and other public amenities. However, it is also the gum that sells for the most on the black market, so it's the most lucrative as well." |
12 | 7cf505cd-2019-04-18T18:12:08Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in adolescent sex education classes. Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, "A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners." 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had "no impactson rates of sexual abstinence." [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu... |
4 | 4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00007-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment in schools. cor"po"ral pun"ish"ment noun 1.physical punishment, such as caning or flogging. implemented: Verb 1.put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect. School corporal punishment refers to causing deliberate pain or discomfort in response to undesired behaviour by students in schools. It often involves striking the student either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement such as a cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with the open hand, especially at the elementary school level. As of 2015, 31 states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in public schools, though in some of these there is no explicit prohibition. Corporal punishment is also unlawful in private schools in Iowa and New Jersey. In 19 U.S. states, corporal punishment is lawful in both public and private schools. Years ago, it was acceptable for a husband in the United States to beat his wife in order to get her to do what he wanted or to punish her. His asserting his authority through corporal punishment was accepted as a social norm. Should we be teaching school children that in this day in age it is appropriate for them to be hit when someone disagrees with them and their behaviour. Physical punishment can easily escalate and cross the line to abuse and serious injury, particularly when an instrument is used and public schools are required to use a paddle or ruler to implement corporal punishment. An estimated 1 to 2 percent of physically punished students in the United States are seriously injured, to the point of needing medical attention. According to the AAP and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, these injuries have included bruises, abrasions, broken bones, whiplash injury, muscle damage,brain injury, and in a few cases death. I am aware that this data is out of date but we should not ignore the fact that through the ages the number of children being smacked by their superiors is large during the 2005-2006 school year, 223,190 children had corporal punishment implemented in schools. It is because of these reasons I do not believe it moral to implement corporal punishment in schools. Sources: http://centerforparentingeducation.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... |
21 | f6a4061a-2019-04-18T11:21:34Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Global Warming is Fake News You are right. . . Earth history has showed history of cooling and warming. But you ignoring the, Fact that all these cooling and heating period take a long, Long time to take place. Literally it take ten of thousands of years to hundreds of thousands of years to change the climate. It true we have natural cycle, And we have global warming affected by human influence. Both are true statements. But you saying global warming is fake because humans has nothing to do with it is completely false. Climate has change "For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100, 000 year intervals. About 80-90, 000 years of ice age with about 10-20, 000 years of warm period, Give or take some thousands of years. " (1) Right now we are in the Milankovitch Cycles which take up to "100, 000 years" (2) to complete. "There has been an overall cooling trend, Consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, And this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, The CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, It has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. " (3) You say "these scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortious computer program" is also a false claim. Just because you give me a link that has a article from the "mail" that support what you are saying. Doesn't mean it is correct. One big reason is this. The "Mail" been know to give out fake news. "Has a strong conservative bias and has a poor track record with fact checkers. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017)" (4)This article show no proof on trying to disclaim of Global warming. None. It look like you are the one who is supporting the FAKE NEWS agenda. You also said only a "small group of scientists" believe in global warming is also wrong. "Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion" (5) Humans "we're the ones who burn fossil fuels and clear trees that absorb carbon dioxide, Sending heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. " if you want to learn more, I will lead you toward the right direction. There are 9 main causes. "1. Simple chemistry –when we burn carbon-based materials, Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)2. Basic accounting of what we burn, And therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)" (6)"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, Most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. " (7) (I encourage to click on this 7th source, It has a nice graph for you) Again you are wrong on saying there is a "small group". Most of the scientific community believe Humans are the cause and increasing global warming. Instead of waiting a few more ten thousand years, We are seeing changes in the past 200 years. This isn't natural. It suppose to take thousands and thousands of years not a few hundred years. So, In fact Humans are increasing the rate of climate change. There is more evidence that support climate change is cause by humans. "Increase in carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change. Carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere primarily as the result of the burning of coal, Oil, And natural gas for energy and transportation. The atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide is currently about 30% above what it was 150 years ago. The relative impacts on climate of various other "greenhouse" gases are also shown on the figure. " (8) Again the scientific evidence is overwhelming in supporting this cause. Humans are the biggest threat of causing the increases of global warming. What you are doing is the spreading the fake narrative, Not the truth. You also only show one misinformed source. You haven't show anything else just false claims that you can't back up. . . Sources1&3. Http://ossfoundation. Us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle2. Http://ossfoundation. Us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles4. Https://mediabiasfactcheck. Com/daily-mail/5&6. Https://www. Edf. Org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change7. Https://climate. Nasa. Gov/scientific-consensus/8. Https://www. Esrl. Noaa. Gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1998/faq9. Html |
45 | cff9b0d3-2019-04-18T16:44:56Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Abortion should stay legal I understand what you mean so I will give you a chance to refute my statements |
4 | 8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | should schools use corporal punishment My argument stands, and screw this 100 character limit. really makes me angry. To bad my opposition didn't respond. |
39 | 148740e7-2019-04-18T16:49:23Z-00006-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage Laws In The USA Should Be Abolished I'm interested to see how this goes. Just to clarify, I signed up believing that you were in favor of abolishing the minimum wage laws; that is, removing federal and state minimum wage laws. |
31 | c1ac6b3c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00013-000 | Is obesity a disease? | It's my body and I'll starve if I want to The main problem facing Prop's entire case is that this is simply none of the government's business. What people eat or don't eat is a private matter and the intervention of the nanny state would have us all on a diet of compulsory cabbage and nut roast. People can be grown up about this, and where they're children, their parents can be grown up about this. The entire health and education system already exists to tell us to eat our greens and cycle to work; for those people who chose not to do so, they have a range of diet option and advertising tell them what those options are. The government regularly runs healthy eating advertising campaigns, and they often focus on obesity such as the Change4Life campaign, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the other side across.[1] It's free speech, it's a free choice for the consumer, it's called the market. Prop seems to think that consumers are idiots, nobody believes that a diet for a couple of weeks will make them look like a super model any more than buying a pair of speedos will. However, they can assess the different products, decide which one they trust more, do further research if they want to and then choose. [1] Politics.co.uk Staff, 'Anti-obesity campaign launched', Politics.co.uk, 2 January 2009, http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/01/02/anti-obesity-campaign-launched |
10 | 82f61ec7-2019-04-18T18:07:56Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed "If it is a valid condition as con claims" Quote me. I did not claim anything to be a valid condition. This entire paragraph is a complete waste of time. "If the brain scans are invalid then "sex change operations" are a big SCAM." Scam (n.) - a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation There is no deception on the part of the conductors of the sex change operation. This is just silly...It's as if pro was stating that surgeons are conniving to do something. They are not a scam in that the ones who apply for it get EXACTLY what they ask for. There is no deception running under the operation. It's plain and simple: male -> female female -> male. "Giving the benefit of the doubt and yielding to the science we have on it if it is indeed real then these brain scans show how it works, and given they are observable we should require a brain scan to confirm it." I've already logically refuted the practicality of brain scans in this area of operation. Pro states that brain scans are plausible in this area without any logical or data support. If it turns out there is a different reason and that gains more credibility then we should instead require a test for that instead but for now we should either A. Use the most valid ressarch available to get a test to determine eligibility. OR B. Not allow sex changes. "If it turns out there is a different reason and that gains more credibility then we should instead require a test for that instead but for now we should either A. Use the most valid ressarch available to get a test to determine eligibility. OR B. Not allow sex changes." Research and application are two very different things. Research into the structure of the DNA performed many decades earlier was not to manifest into actual application in medical science until more recent years. Just because something is in research doesn't mean it should be applied. Since this is the case, these two things my opponent thinks we 'should' do are irrelevant to the context of this debate. My opponent continues failing to prove his resolution to be a necessity. |
33 | cce0604d-2019-04-18T12:58:20Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Outline I. Intro II. Animal suffering ethics III. Environment IV. Health V. Conclusion VI. Sources I. Intro Thanks for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Exceptions, rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. [0] Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be stuck on a desert island or in an elevator shaft. There are three main points to my argument, animal suffering & ethics, environment issues, and health concerns. As a responsible adult and productive member of society I feel it is necessary to take care of one's health, the environment, and to show compassion for animals. II. Animal suffering ethics First and foremost is animal suffering and ethics. Claim 0: There is no survival need to eat animal products. Warrant 0: "Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made. Their health status appears to be at least as good as other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians."[1] Impact: Any suffering via the raising, transportation, and breeding of livestock can be seen as animal cruelty. Vegan is the morally superior path. Claim 1: Animals suffer greatly during factory farming. Warrant 1: Common knowledge. Impact 1: When combined with the fact that we don't need to eat meat to survive and the abundance of wealth in 1st world countries, factory farming has no relevant difference than dog fighting, pig wrestling, pigeon shooting, and cock fighting. We are simply eating meat for pleasure at the cost of great suffering and pain to animals. This is animal cruelty. Halt a large portion of animal cruelty by becoming vegan. Claim 2: Humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans. Warrant 2: Richard Dawkins a famous person known for his intellect says so. [2] Impact 2: This is a cruel double standard. Such a double standard is an injustice. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." [3] Martin Luther King, Jr. As long as such an injustice is allowed to stand, a threat to justice everywhere remains. Become vegan today to help remedy this injustice. Claim 3: Cage-free, free range, pasture raised, and their variants are a form of humane washing. Warrant 3: "the movement to treat farm animals better is based on the idea that it is wrong to subject them to unnecessary harm; yet, killing animals we have no need to eat constitutes the ultimate act of unnecessary harm." [4] Impact 3: While factory farming is common knowledge humane washing is not. Not only does humane washing have the injustice of animal cruelty but of deliberate deceit to the public. Adults in 1st world countries should become vegan thus boycotting such products. III. Environment If you paid attention in elementary level science class you learned about the food chain, autotrophs, heterotrophs, and tropic levels. That each trophic level requires significantly higher amount of biomass and thus energy. Therefore, it is logical to eat at a lower level in the food chain, plants instead of animals. Cows require up to sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. Then, there is destructive fishing habits, rain forest deforestation to clear land for cows, and so forth. IV. Health I think it is immoral to carelessly destroy your health and leech off of the various forms of welfare and public assistance. I ideally a person should repay his or her society and become an industrious citizen. There are many health benefits from becoming vegan with little health concerns. The benefits including receiving plenty of the good while avoiding the bad. The good being antioxidants, fiber and phytonutrients. The bad being excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, heterocyclic amines, endotoxins, and IGF-1. V. Conclusion The first world is plagued by immoral and morbidly obese humans leeching off not only their own nations but destroying the environment for everyone. We can no longer afford to allow these evil humans to desecrate our morals and future. They will hide behind their religions and selfish ideologies, nevertheless we cannot afford to be infinitely patient. For justice, the environment, and your health become vegan today. All adults in first world countries barring a few exception should become vegan as soon as possible. Thank you for reading and thank you for the debate. VI. Sources 0. http://prime.peta.org... 1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 2. https://richarddawkins.net... 3. https://www.brainyquote.com... 4. http://freefromharm.org... |
28 | 181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal I am hoping for a great debate with whoever accepts this case. I will be arguing that, under certain circumstances and societies, prostitution should be legalized, and I will clarify what those qualifiers are in my opening argument. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing that prostitution should not be legalized. Hope to debate you soon! |
31 | 7d72f4cc-2019-04-18T18:59:03Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Narcolepsy This debate is for me to get an opinion from someone else on something I will explain. I have narcolepsy which is a genetic disease. It is a rare disease, if my opponent wants to do some research on this topic he is welcome. So this is more of an advice. I know I'm too young to start thinking about this stuff, but still I think a lot about the future although sometimes is to far from now. I want my opponents advice on, if it's worth risking having a kid who might inherit this disease or is it better to adopt or to not have child at all. I would never want anyone to have this disease because I've gone through a lot that has technically ruined part of my life or at least didn't allow me to do or experience some things I would of loved to. so What do you think? I'm open to all opinion, and please be totally honest with me. |
38 | 174dab34-2019-04-18T18:36:44Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana In the next round please define Medical Marijuana. Checking if you thing the same definition as I do :D |
33 | 2e8eda57-2019-04-18T20:03:07Z-00003-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism I guess the problem is maybe with the way they phrase it- vegetarianism is not necessarily connected with PETA, and its not clear whether the issue is vegetarianism or legislating vegetarianism. Althogh I'm a vegetarian, I would be against a law against eating meat as unconstitutional. Yes, the animals people eat should be killed humanely, and that can be legislated, but vegetarianism should be a choice. Thank you for answering, and I don't think I really have anything to debate with you. |
33 | 8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00006-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Everyone should be vegetarian. Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong." Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets."Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat."Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...; |
40 | abe4d9ff-2019-04-18T17:05:50Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty The death penalty is not supposed to protect life because it is designed to kill people that commit an unjust crime, which I believe is fair. In 1792- 1750BC the Code of Hammurabi was established. Within this code I believe in the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Hammurabi). I think that for every wrong done there should be a just consequence. The death penalty also provides closure for victims. "family members who have witnessed executions " are grateful for the experience, sad that it had to come to that, but satisfied that justice has been fulfilled" (Klaas). As a result there is a less of a threat to the family. Also since the killer is getting the death penalty other families do not have to worry about being a victim. |
8 | fb4c403d-2019-04-18T12:38:39Z-00009-000 | Should abortion be legal? | should abortion be legal I believe abortion should be illegal.My opponent has to prove why abortion should be legal. |
45 | ed49d9f8-2019-04-18T14:27:03Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The United States Should Abolish the Federal Reserve Rebuttal 1: Pro spends most of the contention discussing the history of the Fed. It's mostly irrelevant today and therefore pointless to the debate, but I will address it since it's extremely misleading and a lot of his statements have no actual proof. Plus, I'll address the Fed's oversight. Pro says the Fed was created to be "lender of last resort". I agree with this statement. Pro then says, "If a bank faced bankruptcy it had nowhere to turn so its lending practices had to be responsible." The problem is, they weren't even close to being responsible. There were 8 banking crises in the US in the time period between the end of the 2nd Bank of the United States and the creation of the Fed (77 years), which almost always led to recessions. (1) In fact, half of the banks at the time failed and commercial banks lasted on average about 5 years. (2) This would have hurt the people, just as much as the banks as they were the ones putting their money into these banks. One of the reasons recessions at the time were frequent and brutal. Pro also doesn't seem to realize that having banks lend money to people (likely to pay it back, hence bank regulation) helps everyone. The banks get to collect interest on the debt, while the people lending money get to purchase houses, college education, etc. when they often otherwise would be unable to do so. However, if everyone is charging the banks demanding gold, banks won't be able to do anything. Then everyone loses their money, because the bank closes. Of course, some regulation is important, but severely lacking a bank's ability to lend hurts everyone. Pro then talks about the meeting at Jekyll Island as if it's suppose to be some sort of proof of his case. It's not, he makes up his own conclusions that these men acted in this matter due to corruption, with no actual proof. In reality, it was because of they realized how bad the banking crises had been for the economy, specifically the Panic of 1907 and its following recession. (3) Before I address the actual point of the contention I'd like to address Pro talking about where Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke work now. This doesn't matter, but it's worth pointing out. Their expertise is in economics and finance, obviously they're going to work in a related field. Now, the actual point of the contention, the power of the Fed and its lack of oversight. The Fed does act independently for the most part, because they want the Fed to avoid political pressures. (4) However, the Fed is still controlled by the government. The Fed was started by Congress, and Congress can amend its charter if they see fit. (5, 8) This is why bills like the Federal Reserve Transparency Act are introduced to Congress (the Senate just has no interest in passing it). (7) Plus, the Senate and the President select the chairman, vice chairman, and some of the board of governors. (6)Rebuttal 2: I'd like to remind voters that I don't have to defend every action the Fed had ever done, if I can show a reason it should be maintained. This fact essentially makes Con's 2nd argument worthless, and if anything just strengthens my 2nd argument. Pro's argument essentially boils down to the fact that low interest rates are harmful because they create bubbles. He critiques the Fed helping to start the housing bubble, which was a major cause of the Great Recession. And yes, interest rates were low for much of the decade, when they really should have been higher. However, as I mentioned in my 2nd argument, the banks weren't being regulated enough either, which would have been a much bigger factor. Pro admits, "banks lent money to any person for the purpose of buying houses". Obviously, this means people who the banks should have assumed weren't going to pay it back would have been receiving bank loans. These people would have been the main causes of the housing bubble, because obviously they're the ones who would have put banks in trouble by not repaying their loans. All that does is strengthen my argument about the Fed's role in regulating the banks. Plus, the government itself also was a huge factor in getting more people to buy homes, primarily started through polices due to Bill Clinton's "everyone deserves a house" rhetoric. (9) Then some of the blame also has to go to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were suppose to prevent an event like the Housing Bubble from occurring. (10) Clearly, it's absolutely ridiculous to try and put the blame for the housing bubble on the low interest rates alone, which was really a minor factor overshadowed by government policies and most of all unregulated banks, making the Fed seem more important. Also, even if we accept Pro's argument that low interest rates were a large part of the housing bubble, it still doesn't matter one bit, for the purpose of the debate. I've already shown numerous times in the previous round how the Fed has managed interest rates effectively and proven that they need to be able to do that. Like I mentioned, I don't need to justify everything the Fed has ever done. If there's a bad president, we don't abolish the presidency.Rebuttal 3: Pro begins this contention by saying we shouldn't be using paper money. He fails to offer any alternative, however, so it already severely hurts his argument. He explains that the Fed's ability to produce money is counterfeit. He also tries to account inflation to theft, which are both ridiculous as I'll explain. Pro tries to say the ability to print money is counterfeit, his reasoning being, "The fact that this organization which is not technically a government organization has a printing press is tantamount to counterfeiting". It's almost as if he was saying, if he considered the Fed a government organization then it'd be fine. It just so happens the Fed is a government organization, just as independence to operate. (5, 8) That pretty much defeats this part of the argument. Now the actual point of the contention (which links to the other arguments he made) is that the Fed devalues the US dollar. It is true that typically the Fed targets the inflation rate to be about 2% per year. Personally, I think it should be about 1%, but it makes sense to keep an inflation rate. It makes sense when you consider how bad deflation is. Many of the US's worst economic meltdowns were deflationary periods, such as the Panic of 1837, the Long Depression, and the Great Depression. (11) The Great Recession could have been that way as well (and become much worse) had the Fed not stepped in, but I'll get back to that. One of the main problems with deflation is the deflationary spiral: It's quite simple to understand. If everyone's dollar's are worth more, things cost less. In turn, less money is coming into companies, they can have less workers, less workers means less purchases, there is more supply than demand, and the cycle continues. This isn't the only problem with deflation, however. If the value of the dollar increases, than so do people's debt. This hurts the lower and middle classes the most, as pretty much all Americans need debt for houses, cars, and education. (12) However, I'm not making this up, this has occurred many times throughout history (like I mentioned earlier it ran rampant in some of the US's worse economic downturns). This also happened in Japan in the 90s, commonly known as the "Lost Decade" for the Japanese economy. Deflation had hit the Japanese and the deflationary spiral started, and Japanese banks suffered greatly. (13) The horrors associated with deflation began occurring in the US, in 2008 as mentioned earlier. (14) If we look at Pro's chart we can see at the time of recessions the amount of dollars increased dramatically. That was due to the Fed enacting quantitative easing, which had been done before in Japan. As I'm sure everyone knows, prices didn't shoot up dramatically like that, but why not? Investopedia writer Adam Hayes, explains it like this (14): "The monetary base, or M0, is what most people think about when it comes to the amount of money in circulation, but banks are in the business of making loans with the deposits on hand. The money from those loans are then deposited back into the banking system and re-loaned, over and over again. This is the so-called money multiplier effect. If the multiplier is 10x, for every $100 deposited into a bank up to $1,000 of new credit money is created through this mechanism. The M2 measure of the money supply, which includes the effects of fractional reserve banking and credit, was actually quite stable during this period." Here is the graph Hayes is referring to, which you can see was indeed much more stable: Most of the money the banks actually used was to fix their balance sheets and much of that money is going back to the Fed. (14) That's a much different story than Pro painted saying, "This is troubling because the majority of this money is sitting in bank vaults waiting to be lent out." Finally, I will address Pro's concerns regarding the dollar losing 96% of its value. That may seem like a huge deal, but there a few problems with that. First of all, most people don't just keep paper money, they put it in a bank where it can collect interest (which prior to the Recession would have often seen rates above 2% inflation), many put it in the stock market through 401ks which often grow faster than inflation, or they could even buy gold if they wanted. Plus, wages have also kept and surpassed inflation since 1913, per purchasing power. (15) This pretty much defeats Pro's whole argument.Sources: 1-https://en.wikipedia.org... 2-http://bit.ly... 3-http://wapo.st... 4-http://www.federalreserve.gov... 5-https://www.udel.edu... 6-http://bit.ly... 7-http://bit.ly... 8-http://1.usa.gov... 9-http://buswk.co... 10-http://bit.ly... 11-http://bit.ly... 12-http://bit.ly... 13-http://bit.ly... 14-http://bit.ly... |
28 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | 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; |
16 | d5323527-2019-04-18T19:02:16Z-00001-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | The United States Should End the War on Drugs Con begins by noting that even though the WOD is unconstitutional, he wishes to amend the Constitution. While our Constitution can be amended to make this complete invasion of privacy legal, they shouldn't because it espouses government tyranny and violates the civil liberties that are paramount to our freedom. By giving the government this type of control, we become nothing more than the government's property and no longer live for ourselves but according to a standard we never agreed to but are forced to accept (much like those under dictatorships or other tyrannical rule). Also, Con never explained why the Social Contract was imperative, thus I'm assuming it's a dropped and forfeited argument considering I won't be able to respond. Next Con writes, "As I explained, most drugs currently legal should be banned." I don't remember Con explaining this, and if he had, I would have pointed out the severe flaws in this advocation. Essentially ALL drugs both legal and illegal serve a medical purpose. For instance, heroin is a pain killer. Other legal drugs like anti-depressants, ADD medicine, etc. also obviously serve a medical purpose. Therefore how can Con suggest that most legal drugs should be banned, when in fact our society relies heavily upon them for essential medication and pain relief? Any drug with a legitimate medical purpose can be (and often is) abused. There's no way of getting around that, so this seems like a really implausible and absurd idea. Moving on, Con claims that he did not present contradictory statements regarding heroin. Instead of arguing, I'll simply copy and paste exactly what he said and let the audience decide if these statements from Con's R2 contradict each other or not: 1. "A drug such as morphine or Heroin is effectively harmless ..." 2. "In addition to being less harmful, morphia is possible to directly substitute for alcohol..." 3. "However, despite their relative safety, almost as few as .6% Americans use opiates..." 4. "Why would Americans use a substance that is obviously more harmful [alcohol] at a rate that is much higher than than a drug that is much safer and more pleasant [heroin]?" 5. And finally - "The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes." Ladies and gentlemen, let's look at statements 1-4, particularly 4, and then statement 5. You make your own decision about whether or not these statements logically follow. Con consistently says that heroin is less harmful than alcohol, and then concludes that heroin is more harmful. Hmm. Nevertheless, Con admits that the WOD keeps people misinformed. You shouldn't have to control society through manipulation. Moreover, Con clarifies (in describing the Orwellian "doublethink") that people mistakenly think prescription pills are better for you which he admits is non-sensical. However, he suggests that this is a good thing because it aids prohibition against harder drugs. Of course this is also non-sensical; if he admits that prescription drugs can be just as harmful, than how is this a contention in his favor? Con writes, "[The fact that society is confused] proves that not only can prohibition work, but that the substance being prohibited does not even need to be very harmful for it to work." Essentially what Con just said is that society can be brainwashed to listen to anything the government says is harmful without actually knowing for sure. This is not a *good* thing. Further, this statement isn't reliable. Simply because more people abuse alcohol than heroin doesn't prove a success in the WOD, but simply the fact that alcohol is more socially acceptable. The fact that it's legal and available for purchase are some reasons of why it's consumed more than heroin. Also, people know heroin is dangerous in general thus avoid the drug. This has nothing to do with the WOD but can be observed or learned about through other means. Con has not offered any evidence that use of hard drugs would significantly increase if legalized. Also, the WOD is not limited to hard drugs; most money is spent fighting marijuana - one of the most harmless drugs of all (including the legal ones). Moving on, Con notes, "People are obviously not using these [harder] drugs due to the effect that prohibition... works extraordinarily well." Once again, prohibition is only effective insofar as it has become difficult to get one's hands on drugs that are heavily criminalized. This is not necessarily a good thing. Con's entire argument here rests on the fact that prohibition must work because so few of the population engages in heavy drug use. There is no validity or proof to back up this statement. As I've explained in R2, drug use has been steadily on the rise. Just because most people don't do it because they can't or because they have been lied to about the repercussions is hardly a strong argument in my opponent's favor. Many simply don't want to, plus supply is low. Con says that fast-food should be illegal; there's nothing I can say but "Wow" so let's move on to the next point: slavery and free will. Con concludes that because free will does not exist (which, by the way, is largely debated and most people believe it does exist on both a philosophical and quantum physics level) that we are essentially slaves to our own humanity so why not be slaves to the government. This is a far-fetched analogy that hardly presents a good argument for why our own autonomy should be abandoned in favor of becoming slaves to other people's agenda. Even if free will did not exist, determinism simply posits that every state of affairs is determined by all antecedent affairs. It says nothing about "choosing the least cruel master," and furthermore, there has been NO indication that being a slave to the government is the less cruel route, or that the "government" i.e. our peers should become our "masters." Because of this, Con's existentialist rant about freedom being slavery (okay, Sartre) is completely irrelevant to the debate. He says I advocate people being slaves to their passion instead of slaves to the government. That's fine. Go with that. You may not be able to escape "freedom from self" but you can avoid freedom from government tyranny. Con hasn't given us one reason why being a slave to the government is helpful but simply says the government is the "better master." I've explained in previous rounds why this is both immoral and non-sensical. Con essentially wraps up the debate by saying harsh laws prevent consumption, which is good because society needs saving from their own self-destruction. Extend all arguments negating this ideology, including the fact that drugs can have a myriad of positive effects. Also, Con completely dropped the argument noting that people can and will continue to get high whether drugs are legal or not. With pot criminalized, people huff glue, sniff markers, smoke nutmeg and down cough syrup as ways to get high using everyday things in the home. Furthermore, Con never presented a rebuttal to the fact that the WOD leads to a perpetuation of the under class, destruction of families, a significant deficit and burden on tax payers, government lies, government profiting at their "slaves" expense, and most importantly the inevitable gang violence and other severe, violent crime that is completely detrimental to our society and distracting our law enforcement while simultaneously costing us trillions. He's avoided talking about the economic repercussions at all, and when talking about saving people from their own humanity, he ignores the merits of saving them from an oppressive government that aims to destroy their life, family and opportunities. I pointed out all of these dropped arguments in the last round, yet Con chose not to respond. Considering it's the final round, it's too late now. Thanks and good luck. |
23 | 96f07735-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Voluntary Euthanasia Well-argued bsh1. I will use this round to rebut Pro's case.R1. Human DignityA. Dignity and AutonomyThe argument at hand is that humans have a higher moral standing because of their unique ability to make moral decisions. This point lies on the premise that choice, whether good or bad, ought to be respected. The problem that arises here is that the ability to choose does not necessarily constitute a moral society. Human nature is flawed, and freedoms are often used badly. If humans are capable of immoral decisions, it's not ethical to blindly trust people to make the most moral decisions. Freedom is the precondition for virtue, and by allowing unnecessary freedom we are allowing people to use their agency in ways that may or may not be ethical.This ties back to my C2. If potential euthanasia patients are under pain and external pressures that can factor their decisions, it is probably not best to trust the patient to make that decision in the most moral manner.Autonomy isn't exactly an absolute principle. There are many instances in which it is obvious that self I determination should not be respected. For example, a child who runs out into the street when a car is coming should not be allowed the choice to run into the street because the consequences of their actions are unethical. To allow the child complete autonomy would result in disaster for them, and in order to preserve virtue we must limit freedom in such a proper manner that is best for themselves and not what they believe is best for themselves. When the child is denied the decision to run out into the street, they aren't reduced to the level of a bug, cow, or table. They learn more about what should be done rather than given the freedom to do what they think is moral. This can easily be applied to Pro's argument: just because patients think that they ought to be euthanized does not mean that their decision should be respected.B. Suffering We must take into consideration the factor that pain is a natural part of every life. Suffering is inevitable; whether one is medically I'll or not, they will always have to go through some form of suffering, whether physical, emotional, or both. Instead of treating pain as an evil that serves no purpose, we should strive to become better from it, and acknowledge that cannot simply run away from their trials. By using eugenics as a solution to pain, we are admitting that we are giving up on life and are done trying. This is to treat life as something of little worth, which is problematic because life itself contains worth. Life is, in fact, its own standard, thus rendering it implausible for it to be measured by any other means. If we were to treat life as an easel with each person as a painting, each painting would not exist without the easel in the first place. Although the painting adds value to the easel, it doesn't mean that the easel itself is without worth. To say such is to say that people are without worth, which is obviously incorrect. Pro seems to already agree with by arguing that human dignity constitutes moral worth by self-determination. Suffering contains value because it provides the opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion. Many of the talents and strengths that humans have developed have been brought about because of endurance and suffering in order to reach that spot. One who is unfit to climb a mountain must endure suffering to become fit for the challenge. Through resistance people's best characteristics are brought out, which enable growth and a peak of personality. When people know what it is like to suffer, they become more compassionate for people who are suffering because they understand their situation better. The ability to endure pain helps people in so many ways that to give up entirely seems unsound with the blessing of endurance.When taken into full consideration, euthanasia doesn't just eliminate pain but all the joy that would ever be perceived otherwise. Life comes in good and bad, so to take away life would be to take away all the good as well. This is if we admit that suffering is bad, of which I argued previously that it can be good. If our answer to the bad is to eliminate all chances of perceiving bad, we are eliminating far more than we really think we are. We are extinguishing worth and destroying all possible good.R2. Practical ReasoningThis contention makes two assertions: 1) potential euthanasia patients make attempts on their own lives often, and 2) suicide is more harmful than euthanasia. I would argue that many patients don't make attempts on their own lives, and that it is impossible to know what they're thinking regardless, so to make assumptions is needless. Pro's line "suicide or attempts at it are inevitabilities" is a bare assertion and can easily be proved false if one can find a terminally ill patient that has never attempted to take their own life. Since there obviously are, there's no reason to buy this claim. Pro also argues that to allow euthanasia would be to make death less harmful, but where is the evidence for this claim? Many suicides can be instantaneous without any harm done (besides death) so I see no reason to pass X as being more harmful than Y.R3. Ancillary Benefits A. Psychological ReassuranceThe family and friends of a loved one who chooses euthanasia may find it morally repugnant, as with suicide, and may suffer much more grief than with a natural death. To say that others will be reassured is subjective and depends on each person and whether or not they agreed with the patient's choice to be euthanized. Griz and Boyle said it best: "from the point of view of sound jurisprudence, the self-interest of the opponents of euthanasia can no more be excluded from consideration than the self-interest of its proponents."[1] To assume that the public will be reassured is to ignore the whole picture and not consider those who would be hurt from never being able to see their loved ones again.B. Religious FreedomI'm not sure why Pro thinks that prohibiting voluntary euthanasia disallows the right for people to practice their beliefs, because it doesn't. Would allowing euthanasia trample on the religious rights of those who are opposed to it for spiritual reasons? Of course not. Having the law not be in your favor doesn't mean you can't advocate for the opposition. Moreover, the nature of many religions would mean that many would believe that to eliminate ourselves would be to deny God and his right to choose how long we live and how we die. Plenty of religions also see the value in suffering. Pope John Paul II stated, "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls"[2]. For others, cutting short one's life interferes with their eternal progression. If suffering is inevitable, its best to use that as a trial that makes us stronger rather than eliminating the life itself.C. Medical Resources More resources for lively patients become irrelevant when we review the International Code of Medical Ethics, which is that: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life"[3]. It is not possible to respect life and destroy it at the same time, for that is contradictory. If a physician is going against this code and ending lives, then he or she is doing more bad than any good that can ever be done for other patients.D. Legality ItselfThe issue with this is the jumping-to-conclusions assertion that legalizing euthanasia decreased unwanted deaths. The fact that it happened in *one* nation that may or may not be accurately attributed to euthanasia is quite a minor point. We must also take into consideration the rise in involuntary euthanasia deaths that occurred in the Netherlands which I brought up last round.Sources [1] http://www.all.org...[2]http://www.lifeissues.net...[3] http://ethics.iit.edu... |
42 | 90ee2c92-2019-04-18T13:46:20Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | dog fighting 11 Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans. |
41 | 528b5a91-2019-04-18T12:26:46Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Should student be aloud to have cellphones in class I think students should be aloud to have phones in class so if you forget something that you need you can just call to get back |
15 | 8dd83f76-2019-04-18T12:13:33Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Should Scientist test products on animals I will be arguing against the testing of products on animals and the rules are; 1. Opponent must have a decent vocabulary and a relative experience in debating. 2. NO personal insults 3. Don't muck around, please. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal and conclusion. [Note: I am trying to improve my persuasive writing for high school and my English is relatively mediocre-above average. So please don't go full on me and many of these points made by me may not necessarily mine.] |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00062-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down." |
13 | a0c49422-2019-04-18T13:39:39Z-00001-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Alternate energy Without breaking down into an argument of Semantics, This is what I thought we were debating "Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid" - I had solid proof and evidence to support that this is not the case. However, I will debate upon the new topic you raised "Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels." by a simple play of logic. You have created quite a steep slope for yourself by using the word "never" so frivolously - You back yourself into a logical corner that I can easily exploit by saying "20, 30, 40 years is undeterminate to ensure that Fossil Fuels will NEVER be exceeded by Solar/Wind or even other renewable sources" - The fact that these technologies are in their infantile stage, and still can generate megawats of electricty, is evidence alone that time is the main barrier to this transition. However to me that is not playing fair. I will discuss and prove to you why this is not the case, as sitting in a defensive position is not my way of debating. You state that power generated by the wind and solar radiation is inconsequential in comparison to the power generated from burning and compressing fossil fuels. I call balderdash! The ideals that are conjured when I imagine this scenario, are similar to the power of an Atomic bomb, as opposed to the power of a spear. Sure, the atomic bomb may deal a LOT of damage, and can be remembered for centuries afterwards for its impact, But statistically, a spear has 'killed' more than any type of Bomb we have - and that is just technically a piece of wood, that was later upgraded to have a metal pointy end. This is due to the fact it is time based (part of my original response in this round), and the fact that it is re-newable. You stab a person, pull it out - and you are good to go again. In comparison, only 2-3 Atomic bombs were created at one time, when they were first made (Weapons of Mass Destruction are not included in this, as this is outside of the scope of these bombs), they have a 'once off then it is gone' policy. It is similar here, we can generate alot more force for alot less effort using fossil fuels; However the resource is finite, and it heavily polutes its' external environment. Solar/Wind - This will be here as long as the Earth and Sun are, when those resources fail - im pretty sure our electric / sail cars not working will be the least of our problems. In your previous round, you made reference to the fact that the world is pushing for a 50/50 split between renewable sources, and fossil fuels. This is only a temporary estimation, it is recommended to push for a 100/0 split between Renewable resources and fossil fuels (the ration is split accordingly RN/FF, where RN = Renewable and FF= Fossil Fuels). The reason for this, is that the ability to generate as much force as we do, is nothing to do with our technology to harness the power, but the explosive force that the FF has latently. We basically do nothing by direct which way that explosive power goes, and happen to call the generated force "Horsepower" - which basically means we take the credit for natures 'liquid gunpowder'! On the flip side, all the power we have generated has been through minimal funding but maximum dedication - and has split of into the myriad of power sources we have today (Tidal, Wind, Solar, Nuclear - though this is not a 'Green' source) - That is all us. We have learnt to harness the forces that are everywhere and convert that into energy we can use. Time will improve this, and Time will prove you wrong - of that, I am certain. I look forward to your last round, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic! |
16 | 6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00004-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the "diagnosis" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their "patients" to have serious medical problems -Thank you |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.