query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
11 | 4d48554c-2019-04-18T19:22:35Z-00006-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Ultimate Team War III "1. Yugi possesses a deck of many creatures, each of which could act as a standalone team member. My opponent has far too many team members. Because of this, Yugi cannot be allowed to use his deck." The deck is like the Borg cube. One Borg could be a team member. If Yugi's deck isn't allowed, then the Borg cube isn't allowed. The Borg cube is obviously allowed. Therefore, Yugi's deck is allowed. "2. The Egyptian God cards have unlimited powers, if only for a brief period." Only Obelisk. It only lasts him the duration of one attack. He can destroy an entire city in this one attack, but a decent magical defense will stop the attack. It can just get by ordinary defenses. "3. The limits to Ganondorf's powers are unknown, and there is therefore no way to overpower him. He is immortal, but I accept my opponent's defeat-instead-of-kill clause." He can destroy Hyrule Castle with his attacks. That's the limit, I guess. "Cable places a forcefield around Metallo, protecting Superman. Though Metallo might or might not (probably not) be able to escape, it will give Superman ample time to incapacitate one or more members of Team Con by using one of my victory strategies." Well, I'd have to hear your victory strategies. "Protection Strategy 2: Run and Kill Superman can move very quickly, and can easily escape Metallo's reach. Metallo is then incapacitated by one of Team Pro." That's very vague. "Protection Strategy 3: Assimilation If Superman is assimilated into the Borg collective, he will gain the ability to adapt very quickly. He can then adapt to kryptonite, eliminating his weakness." Snap. "1. Assimilate any of Yugi, Ganondorf, Link or Metallo. (Magneto can use his control over metal to prevent the nanoprobe from infecting him.)" Yugi has the Millennium Puzzle, so Yami Yugi prevents him from making mistakes. This may or may not count as superhuman willpower. Ganondorf has the Triforce of Power. He has more than superhuman willpower. He has godly willpower. Link has the Triforce of Courage. He has godly willpower. Metallo already is a cyborg. Besides, Magneto can uses magnetic powers to save all of them from assimilation, and he can even use his magnetic powers to hold Link, Yugi, and Metallo back, while Ganondorf has his godly willpower to save him. "2. Assimilate everyone on earth, then overwhelm Team Con with a gigantic army of seven billion Borg drones." How long would this take? "1. Get inside a computer which Metallo touches, then take over Metallo. But how? Wonder Woman, Durandal, the Borg Queen or Cable could use their intelligence to trick Metallo into touching the computer. Or Wonder Woman or Cable could force Metallo to touch it." Metallo isn't a computer. He has a brain. "2. With his vast intelligence, he tricks Team Con into doing something stupid leading to their death. Magneto may be too smart, but the others are pretty hopeless against Durandal's genius." Perhaps they realize, "Hey, wait a minute! Durandal is on the other side. Why would I even listen to what he has to say?" "1. Kill Yugi, Ganondorf, Link or Magneto by being epic. Because Superman – he's epic." Yugi could first defend himself with his deck of cards. Ganondorf could transform into Flamin' Head Ganondorf and attack Superman. Link could use the Fused Shadow to morph into a crazy monster and attack Superman. Magneto could easily create a magnetic force field to protect all of Team CON from Superman. "1. Easily incapacitate Yugi or Link, since they are easy to kill." You ignore Yugi's deck of cards. How, exactly, do you propose on killing Link? "3. Mind control a member of Team Con (besides Magneto; he has the anti-mind control helmet) and use that team member to attack another team member. One of them will die eventually. Repeat this process until only one person is left, who can be killed by Team Pro ganging up on him." You forget that Ganondorf is also capable of puppetry, and Yugi can use both Brain Control and Change of Heart. Furthermore, mind-controlling Yugi doesn't help, because he has two minds. "1. Easily incapacitate Yugi or Link." Yugi has his cards. Link is also skilled with weapons. How do you propose on defeating him? "2. Use Lasso of Truth to determine an easy way to defeat Metallo or Ganondorf." There is no easy way. Oh, and Ganondorf needs the Master Sword used on him to be defeated. No other sword will do. "3. Defeat Metallo with superior strength and agility." Metallo could add the Borg Cube to his body. He could then swing the Borg Cube around and crush Wonder Woman. "4. Defeat Magneto by . . . I don't know . . . stabbing him or something. With a wooden blade. Yeah." A magnetic forcefield protects him from a wooden blade. Furthermore, Wonder Woman's outfit is made of metal. Yeah. Now, for my strategies against the Borg Cube: 1. Yugi uses the Millennium Puzzle to enshroud himself, Team CON, and the Borg Cube in the Shadow Realm. a. Here, Magneto manipulates magnetic fields to drag one Borg out of the cube and in front of Yugi. Yugi then activates a trap card, Chain Destruction. Because a Borg was just summoned in front of Yugi, it automatically destroys all of the Borgs in the Borg Cube. Victory. b. Yugi summons Dark Magician and Dark Magician Girl, then plays Ragnarok, resulting in every single one of his monsters coming out to attack and destroy the Borg Cube. 2. Yugi traps himself and the Borg Cube in the Shadow Realm, then plays Dark Hole, creating a black hole in the center of the Borg Cube, eliminating it. 3. Yugi uses Brain Control on the Borg Queen. He now controls the entire Borg Cube. He summons the Winged Dragon of Ra, and uses its ability to sacrifice the 129,000 Borgs and the Borg Queen to give all of their power to Ra. The Borg Cube is then added to Metallo's body. 4. Magneto rips apart the Borg Cube magnetically, or simply manipulates the cyborg Borgs to bend to his will. 5. Ganondorf throws a bunch of monsters onto the Borg Cube. They invade and attack the Borgs. 6. Ganondorf uses the Borg Queen as a puppet, and then eliminates Team PRO with it using its swarming powers and cannons and whatnot. Strategies against Durandal: Computer programs are destroyable by magnets. [1] Magneto could easily use a magnetic field in the Borg Cube to erase Durandal from existence. Strategies against Cable: Magneto can use magnetic fields to pull Cable apart. As long as he just holds the fields there while Cable is busily repairing himself, which is even harder with constant magnetism, Cable can't do anything. Strategies against Superman: With the Borg Cube in the Shadow Realm, Superman can't join them. Magneto can use magnetic fields to put Metallo anywhere he wants, so Metallo can follow Superman with his Kryptonite powers until he breaks down in Kryptonite exposure. Or, of course, once the Borg Cube is taken care of, Yugi can use Change of Heart to control Superman, and sacrifice Superman to the Winged Dragon of Ra. Strategies against Wonder Woman: Once the Winged Dragon of Ra has Superman's strength, Wonder Woman is no match for the Winged Dragon of Ra. Magneto can manipulate Wonder Woman due to her metallic uniform, so Wonder Woman really can't do anything but be destroyed by the Winged Dragon of Ra. So, Magneto is stalling both Wonder Woman and Cable, and he can drag Metallo around, chasing Superman, and he can disassemble the Borg Cube, and he can erase Durandal. Yugi can use Brain Control or Change of Heart to control anybody and sacrifice them to the Winged Dragon of Ra. Yugi can use Chain Destruction or Dark Hole to destroy all of the Borgs. Metallo can then add the Borg Cube (assuming Chain Destruction was used) to his body. Ganondorf and Link can use the Fused Shadow and godly powers to together take down almost anybody on Team PRO. Yeah, this will be great. 1. http://www.cheathouse.com... |
18 | 986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Marijuana should remain illegal Marijuana is a substance that many people abuse. This "gift of nature" is a cause of several thousand employment terminations, incarcerations, relationship breakups, car accidents, and more. The main purpose of smoking marijuana is for the high that one receives. The fact that it "grows naturally" doesn't excuse the fact it is an abused drug, and causes a person to act poorly, nor does it call for a legalization. |
24 | cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00006-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation I am first of going to talk about the progressive tax. Yes it is the current system we have now. Our tax code is a mess, it has thouthands of pages, and you can't follow every singl law in a 82,000 page book, so everyone is a law breaker. Now I will talk about a flat tax. It is much more simple so everyone knows what the tax code is, and it diminishes wasteful laws and other things so you know whats coming every year. Also it is better for the economy then a progressive tax. Everyone uses roads, traffic lights, and some use public schools right? So in our system now only 50% are paying for what they use, but under a flat tax everyone will pay at least a small amount. I belive if you use sometghing like a road, you ought to pay for its fixing for the good of everyone else. Rebutals: "It taxes the right people more fairly' How is it fair when only 50% of people pay for vital services. Thats like me renting a car and saying I will not pay for it, but the guy behund me should, so fair , I think not. " It brings in more money fairly." Well what do you consider fair, people paying for stuff or people not paying for stuff, but you or I pay for it instead. I know you are talking about income levels, but I will touch that subject later. "It takes more from the super rich" Well people like bill gates owned one of the biggest company's ever. If he got taxed highly his company would still have been very large, but it would have been a slower process. Why? It does this because if you tax job creators very highly then they will be less inclined to hire people as much, as fast, or at one time. A flat tax is acctuslly going to make people richer. Because with people paying a lower rate, and a simple one then big job creators will have more money to hire people. "The rich may spend their money on expensive toys" You go on what they might do and all that stuff, when your ruch you wanna get richer, so you expand your buissnes so you can get bigger, so 9 times out of 10 taxing a rich person lower will help him expand. My personal experoence: My dad was fired r4ecently and were in the 40% tax braket. So 40% will be taken away, he is building his own doctgors office so we can have a scource of income. We are taxed highly and can only afford to hire ___ amount of people. If we wher taxed less, or fairly then he could hire more people, so a flat tax makes everyone richer. Poor people then get jobs=wealth=better economy=everyone gains. tHE FLAT TAX advantage: On the private side, a flat tax reduces the distortions that otherwise arise when two individuals receive different after-tax returns on their labor or investment. The flat tax also eliminates private incentives to concoct wasteful schemes to shift their income onto the ledger of their poorer relatives. (1) On the public side, the flat tax limits political discretion by making it harder for the government to single out "the rich" for special treatment. It also crimps government spending by denying any group the luxury of supporting government expenditures entirely at someone else's expense. (1) Furthermore, annual income is bad proxy for individual consumption. Many wage earners support their own children or even their parents, and thus consume only a fraction of what they earn. Yet these pervasive forms of voluntary redistribution are systematically overlooked. (1) Similarly, the Obama plan will badly hurt people who are saving for retirement. Why should someone who earns $125,000 in each of two years pay lower taxes than one who bunches $250,000 in one year? (1) The obama plan is a progressive tax plan. And is in place now. All in all, Obama's efforts to soak the rich may prove half successful. The rich will be soaked, but everyone else will be left worse off from lagging productivity and asset losses. (1) And since there are no numbers in this debate the yax rate could be from 1% to 100% so since he is using the same things from our tax code today (same numbers probably) I will use the many flat tax proposals out today, such as 9-9-9 or 6-6-6 because those are the only ones possible at this time, and yours ragnge from 0-50%. That is given because you said like the system today vs flat tax, so 0-50 vs 6-9. correct me if I am wrong pleas Yet at the same time Americans think that the tax code is unfair, only 40 percent support a flat tax. The nearly 60 percent who don't think the tax code is unfair are adamantly opposed to a flat tax. Why? With a flat tax, deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions would be eliminated. Americans cherish those two deductions more than the child care credit or the deductions for family members or other beneficial tax breaks. (2) The remaining opposition comes from those who believe that with a flat tax the rich would not pay their fair share. I don't know what a fair share is to upper-income people. I do know this. The top 5 percent of current taxpayers pays almost 75 percent of all federal income taxes. (2) once again, does that sound fair? as long as the rate is reasonable, it is, in fact, a fair tax. The rich now can find ways to shelter money from taxation, although many tax shelters were abolished over the years. A flat tax would eliminate deductions. The little tax savings from mortgage interest would be compensated by lower taxes. Same for charitable giving. (2) If a 15 percent flat tax rate were imposed, for example, and a taxpayer earned $40,000, his taxes would be $6,000. But in later years, through hard work and inventiveness, if he earned $1 million, he would pay $150,000 in taxes. America is unique in that it enables those who are enterprising to prosper. The current tax debacle is a deterrent to entrepreneurs. It takes far too much of their earnings, to the point that it is hard for them to re-invest. The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies. Most of those are Subchapter S corporations, meaning the owners get the revenues from the corporations and can re-invest extra money in their companies. The more money they would have available to re-invest, the more employment we would have. A flat tax would help to accomplish that. (2) scources: http://www.forbes.com... (1) http://archive.newsmax.com... (2) |
27 | 9a5532b3-2019-04-18T16:00:44Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Skull art challenge Let your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popular |
18 | c2b2fdca-2019-04-18T16:51:34Z-00008-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion should remain legal. In Round 3, I, the Pro, will ask my opponent, the Con, 5 questions that they will answer in Round 3. In Round 3, they will also ask me 5 questions that I will answer in Round 4 before I begin my rebuttals. Definition of Terms. These are to be accepted throughout the debate unchanged and unargued. Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [1]. Coming from Latin word abioriri, aborior, abortus meaning miscarry, be aborted, pass away [2]. Human Being/Person- A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance [3]. Murder- The crime of deliberately killing a person [4a]. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [4b]. Involuntary Manslaughter- The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally [5]. Miscarriage- Loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy [6a]. Stillborn- When a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy [6b]. Life- The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death [7]. Rape- The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will [8]. Sources 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 2. . http://www.latin-dictionary.net...... 3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 4a. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 4b. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 5. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...... 6a. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...... 6b. . http://www.babycenter.com...... 7. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... 8. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... |
42 | 576724b3-2019-04-18T15:59:56Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist Defense: rehashing of the defense of premise 2: let X be a world with categorical imperative C. let Y be a world with categorical imperative not-C. Let Z be a world without categorical imperatives. C states that one ought to do action 'a'. (C <=>0a) not-c states that one ought not to do action 'a' (not-C <=> 0~a) thus '0a' is an element of X and not an element of Y and '0~a' is an element of Y and not X and both '0a' and '0~a' are not elements of Z. Let P1 be an observer in all three worlds and let P2 be a conveyer in all three worlds. P2 tells P1 '0a' in all three worlds. Note: while we have the about the imperatives in X, Y and Z; P1 does not. How would P1 be able to justifiably assign a truth value to C (justifiably believe C is true)? First let's imagine the case of a hypothetical imperative with the same imperative that is in C: hypothetical imperative h(C) is in X, Y and Z. h(C) states "if one desires outcome 'b' and one has sufficient reason to assume that action 'a' will result in 'b', then one ought to perform action 'a'" [h(C) <=> ([D(b)&K(R(a,b))]->C); where D is the desire property, K is sufficient reason property, and R is the relation between two arguments where the first results in the second.] P1 will be able to justify assigning one truth value or the other to h(C) depending on whether or not he conforms with h (that is, whether or not he desires outcome b and has sufficient reason to assume that the action will result in the attainment of that outcome) the conditional 'h' in h(C) allows P1 to justifiably believe (or not believe) h(C), because h represents the condition of h(C)'s truth value. Given this, we know that we cannot use this method to find the truth value of C, as h(C) =/= C. C is an 'ought' without condition. Applying that condition and using it to justify the application of a truth value to C would be fallacious as such justification would only apply to the special case of C; h(C) but not C alone. Imagine P1 and P2 again. If P2 states C and P1 asks why, the answer 'because it's a categorical imperative' is not a sufficient reason. If P2 gives an answer like "because you desire result 'b'" and then presents sufficient reason to believe that doing 'a' will result in 'b', P2 will have turned c into h(c). He has given a reason to assign a truth value to h(c) but not to c alone. For any action 'a', that you are categorically obliged to do, any reason given to explain why you ought to do so will be of the same form. You must first turn the categorical form of the imperative into a hypothetical form, before you provide a reason. Paradoxically, doing so does not provide a reason for the categorical form, but only to hypothetical form. Take away the conditional, and the reason no longer applies. For a human to have knowledge, they must have a justification for believing, a reason, be it empirical evidence or some line of logic to concludes to that statement. in the case of categorical imperatives, all such attempts to give a reason for believing the categorical imperative is true, without qualification, must first grant qualification to the categorical imperative, but doing so inevitably turns the categorical form of the imperative, into a hypothetical form. because of this, there is no way to provide a reason for granting a truth value to a categorical imperative, as all attempts will be granting such values to hypothetical forms of such imperatives rather than categorical. as there is no condition upon which P1 can justifiably assign a truth value to C alone (without adding the hypothetical) there exists no method in either X or Y that would help indicate the truth value of C. thus, (as we assume X, Y and Z are the same in all other ways except the truth value of C) X and Y are indistinguishable to any observer. X and Y represent worlds with opposing imperatives. Since those two world are indistinguishable, it follows they cannot be distinguished from a world where neither imperative is true (such as Z); Z us also a world without any categorical imperatives. Since the form of this explanation allows one to extrapolate to any number of such imperatives in any set of 3 such worlds, One may conclude that: p2)'a world with categorical imperatives and a world without categorical imperatives are indistinguishable from one another.' This is perhaps the most explicit way of demonstrating my second premise. My previous defenses were basically less rigorous forms of this. counter argument: my opponent claims that first my claim about something being controversial does not make it true and second, morality has been 'established' by theory of mind, cognitive empathy and moral inferential systems. This leads me to believe that my opponent misunderstands my objection. I was not using controversial in the sense he seems to think I was, and the idea that those things establish the basis of morality was the very thing I was attacking. after explaining how morality is not comparable to scientific practices (as there is no standard theory) and that they are at best comparable to mathematics (by this I was eluding to how there can be multiple, mutually exclusive but equally valid systems given certain postulates) my next statement was to elucidate that even that may not be the case due to the 'controversy' of the term 'morality'. What two people call 'moral' can be two entirely different things; that isn't in dispute. Where the first person uses something like the bible as a moral compass, the second may use human wellbeing as his compass and the two may both coincide and contradict on different occasions. this is not unlike how the parallel postulate in Euclidian geometry leads to certain conclusions that its absence would not allow (such as in parabolic geometry). The problem of 'controversy' presents itself, because in cases of mathematics, postulates are assumed to be true. Whilst the results of the postulates will be objective given the postulates, the postulates themselves may or may not reflect reality. The objectivity/subjectivity of the postulates is irrelevant to the mathematician; they are simply extrapolating what would occur IF the postulates were true. The reason such axioms are not 'controversial' is because it is accepted amongst mathematicians that the postulates are assumed and that they may or may not reflect reality. This is not and cannot be the case for morality. That human wellbeing is 'the correct' basis for morality is not assumed by all. That is what I meant by 'controversial'. Unlike in mathematics where it is okay to assume something (since pure math isn't talking about reality, its talking about the results of definitions of numbers and numerical systems) we cannot simply assume that in reality we have some universal categorical obligation to value human welfare. My opponent uses theory of mind, cognitive empathy and moral inferential systems as examples, but morality is first a word, and thus will mean something different depending on how two separate people use it. Morality is not like the word 'physics' or 'chemistry' where people that have different definitions may be ignored due to the existence of a standard theory. Since no standard theory of morality exists, there is no standard by which we may ignore other people's disagreements upon definitions. the three examples and their related studies, all define morality exclusive to their own systems, but that those are the 'correct' definition of morality is ultimately relative (and thus subjective) to those given systems. --- With regards to the pomegranate example: both examples are subjective, because how the individual defines moral goodness. Examine: 'pomegranates are good because I like them" here there is one objective thing and one subjective thing, but my opponent seems to think they are switched. The objective thing is the person making this sentence likes pomegranates. Regardless of what my view of reality is this person still likes pomegranates (unless he's lying). Though his liking of pomegranates may vary over time, and 'the liking of pomegranates' may be subjective to his state of mind, that he has that state of mind is still a statement about reality (again, unless he's lying). The subjective part of the statement is 'pomegranates are good'. The definition of good is ultimately dependent on the person making the statement about pomegranates. he may be defining good as 'is desirable' or beneficial to health or any number of other uses of the term good, the definition of good in this case, is the subjective thing. Examine: pomegranates are good because they contain anti-oxidants the objective thing about this statement is again the statement about anti-oxidants. It is a factual statement about reality. The subjective thing is the meaning of good. You could be saying that you find antioxidants desirable or you could be saying that antioxidants are beneficial to your health. I agree with what you say about god. but when you go on to say that if things are (morally) good because the effects they have on the real world, then goodness is objective, you are making a false statement. Look at all these statements: "things are good because of the effects they have on the world", "thing are good because god likes them'", "pomegranates are good because I like them"; "pomegranates are good because they contain antioxidants". Each could be one of two things; statements of definition, or statements attributing properties. If they are definitions, then they are definitions subjective to the person making the statement. That is, another person could disagree and neither would be wrong. If they are assignments of properties then we still need to figure out why such properties are being assigned. Why are things that god likes good, or why are things that effect the world good', become questions that require answers, and in my opponents case, answers that have yet to supplied. |
37 | e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Safe Sex Education in Schools Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all sch... |
32 | 1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00080-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Exemptions for when citizens can't vote/pay. Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australia and Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (e.g. being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day, or over 500 kilometers away from their voting place are also excused, by requesting a doctor to prove their condition, in the first case; or asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are, in the second case. A homeless person could also presumably be exempted from paying a fee for not voting. |
45 | 953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00006-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished This debate is a redo of one of my previous debates. If you wish, you may view that one first to get the gist of my opinion. However, I am adding the rule that you may not quote anything I said in that debate for the duration of this one. This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good |
21 | 422c0992-2019-04-18T18:12:13Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions. My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming. "Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e. g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. " . http://timeforchange.org...From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture. "This graph best represents what is taking place world wide. Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now. "The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up. What has happened recently? "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. " The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE. The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions. To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide. The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site. . http://www.epa.gov... Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here. Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: "CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions" What exactly do you mean by human emissions? For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions. None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1. I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like. |
26 | ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Racial Bias is actually exacerbated by standardized testing: "In the case against the Texas TAAS test (see related story), plaintiffs presented research showing that standard test-construction methods built in racial bias. The judge concluded he "cannot quarrel" with that finding. Groups concerned about civil rights should use this argument to oppose the use of tests to make high-stakes decisions, such as school graduation or grade promotion. According to a declaration by Prof. Martin Shapiro of Emory University, who is both a lawyer and a psychologist, Texas uses "point-biserial correlations" in deciding which items to use and which questions to discard as the test is assembled from field-tested questions. Items with high biserial correlations are those generally answered correctly by test-takers who score high on the test overall. Items which many low-scoring students get right have lower correlations. To obtain higher consistency (and hence technical reliability) on the test, Texas follows the typical practice of using items with the highest correlation values. This procedure means that on items covering the same materials, the ones with the greatest gaps between high and low scorers will be used. Because minority group students typically perform less well on the test as a whole, the effort to increase reliability also increases bias against minorities. According to other research, items which facilitate ranking and sorting are often items which, perhaps unintentionally, factor non-school learning and social background into the questions. Such items help create consistency in test results, but they often are based on the experiences of white middle-to-upper class children, who also typically have access to a stronger academic education. This test assembly approach was developed in large part to help obtain consistency on tests designed to rank and sort students, such as IQ tests, the SAT, or national, norm-referenced achievement tests (NRTs). While procedures which reinforce racial and other biases should not be used in any case, tests such as TAAS now rely on biserial correlations -- even though the TAAS supposedly is not intended to sort students but to determine whether they have met specified levels of achievement. By using this method of item selection, the TAAS, like many other state "criterion-referenced" or "standards-based" exams, is actually constructed to resemble an NRT. This common test development procedure exacerbates the existing inequities of schooling. When used in high-stakes testing, biserial correlation helps ensure that at least some students who know the material and ought to pass the tests do not. Those students are overwhelmingly low-income, of color, with English as a second language, or have special needs." (http://www.fairtest.org...) The pro has no benefits except the fact that standardized testing may alleviate racial bias however, as the information provided by fairtest.org states, racial bias is further accentuated by standardized tests. As stated before, standardized test do not promote education, performance, or passion. That hollowness creates staid thinking and in a world that is constantly moving forward leads to regression. |
27 | 9c362ae5-2019-04-18T16:33:10Z-00005-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Rebuttals & New PointsI will admit that my equation was inaccurate in a sense. I will agree with you that there can be too many regulations. However, I will not deny that there must be some regulations put in place in order to ensure violent individuals do not obtain a gun and that the future crime can be prevented. The court cases you have listed - especially Heller v. District of Columbia - support my point: the second amendment must not be misinterpreted. That is what I have said in the previous round. It seems we agree on some issues, while we disagree on others. I will admit that there are some negative influences when you increase gun control, but there are also many benefits that one cannot simply ignore:"There is no question, of course, that guns figure in countless murders, suicides and accidental deaths. Over the five years ending in 1997, the Justice Department says, there was an average of 36,000 firearms-related deaths a year. (Fifty-one percent were suicides, and 44 percent homicides.) Determining whether particular gun control laws would have, on balance, prevented some of those deaths is difficult." [1] There are three possibilities: 1. Gun Control laws decrease the crime rate.2. Gun Control laws increase the crime rate.3. Gun Control laws have nearly no effect whatsoever on the crime rate.I will support possibilitiy one and three. The crime rate will be influenced by gun control, whether it be a major influence or a minor influence. However, one cannot deny that there will be some influence. Some of the sources I will list will support me, some will support you, and some will support both of us. I do believe, however, that the sources I will list will strengthen my stance. "However, the acts of violence themselves and gun control show that there may be a correlation between the availability of guns and crime. What the relationship is still undetermined for such contradictory data exists that can trump and repel arguments given by both sides of the gun control debate, pro gun control and against gun control." [2] You cannot deny that there will be a relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. I will admit that some states have gun control laws that are too strict and that some states have too weak gun control laws. However, let's put party aside and work together for the betterment of the American society. We can begin by expanding a few aspects of gun control. You cannot deny that we need background checks, limited ammunition, and a regulation of gun production. We will need to improve security measures in order to ensure that schools, malls, movie theatres, and other public places are safe from violence. Both gun control and security measures will ensure that crime is DECREASED. The crime rate as a whole may stay about the same, but I assure you, there will be a positive influence once sophisticated gun control is enacted. I recognize that this debate is about gun control specifically, but I would like to point out some other ways to reduce crime: We need to reform our education system, increase spending in security, reform the tax code, and assist the people that are troubled, depressed, and maybe mentally ill. These measures, alongside gun control, will ensure that crime is decreased. I do not believe that the points you have are sufficient enough to support your claim. You will need to find new evidence. Sources[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://gun.laws.com... |
12 | 1b357a32-2019-04-18T17:41:30Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Abortion should be banned. Hi. I accept your challenge. I believe that pain-free abortion is something that must be legalized in our modern and progressive society. Firstly, the abortion I talk about is the voluntary abortion, as requested by a woman who is finding herself pregnant with child she does not want. CA 1) "if you did abortion, you are like a murderer" Abortion as I accept as legalizable is the one done within 14 weeks of period absence, aka 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this stage, the new organism is an embryo, never exceeding the size of several millimetres. It is not yet capable of thought, thus it is not murder. Furthermore, if killing an embryo was a crime, then killing rabbits, bugs, and any animal capable of brain stimuli would be even worse, since they have developed a life, thoughts, habits and reflexes, when the embryo cant even use its brain yet. 2) "It has negative effects on our society. Moreover, consequences are so horrible!" Please develop both these arguments. The "moreover" suggests an added argument to what you are saying. Please explain what these negative effects are, what the consequences are, and how they qualify as horrible. The seems an interesting and eye-opening path for the argument to pursue upon. I shall let you develop this part of the argument before countering it. 3) "After abortion this person will be emotionally depressed" "Think about your health and not born baby!" http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk... http://www.marieclaire.com... and especially; http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Some women are too poor to afford having a child. This child will then have little or no education, and perhaps even turn to criminality to find the feeling of being appreciated he never had at home. Some women do not want a child. They will hate him all his life, because it was something they were forced to do and did not want. To avoid negative impact on mothers, mandatory psychological assistance should be provided, to accompany the woman, and help her survive this trying time of her life. But you do not have the right to say, that just for their good, you are going to FORCE them to have a child they do NOT want, to make two souls live a life of POVERTY and mutual FRUSTRATION, just so that they avoid, indeed, terrible psychological problems, but that you could resolve without impeding on their private lives. So, yes, you will help 10 mothers who actually will enjoy their baby, and who will be happy with them. But if you make abortion a long and trying process, where people have to battle through ranks of highly trained and highly experienced pregnancy experts, doctors and psychologists, where constant support and protection, meetings with real mothers who were in this situation is assured, then you will avoid putting 50 more mothers in permanent depression, and making 40 more suicide, or rely on illegal, unsafe and often fatal abortion. Don't avoid something new. Prepare people for it. |
3 | 5c015b19-2019-04-18T16:38:58Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | should mobiles be allowed in school http://www.youtube.com...So Pro has conceded?I believe Pro has misunderstood my position and has confused the word school with campus. Pro is saying that: students should be allowed to carry cell phones to and in school, implying that they are allowed to have their phones with them during their lectures.I am saying that: students should not be allowed to carry their cell phones to and in school, meaning that they they are not allowed to have their phones with them during their lectures. They are to hand their phones to their teachers or keep them in their lockers._______________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals: "If a child has forgotten their homework they should be allowed to call their parents to bring it to the school."-This can just as easily be done using a phone within the facilities of the campus."Calling from a cell phone will save time compared to going to the office to use the phone."-Most schools in the United States have individual telephones in every classroom. I will provide a link of your average school district and how it has telephones installed in most of the schools. Therefore, students will not have to go to the office. Furthermore, my resolution allows students to get their phones from their teachers so minimal time is wasted as well.http://www.fortdodge.k12.ia.us...;"Mobile phones are always good to have on hand especially in case of an emergency."-No they are not always good to have on hand because of the previously mentioned points I made in round 1 and my new point that I will explain in my addendum. Furthermore, according to my resolution, if there is an emergency, students can retrieve their phones from their teachers."I believe when you consider the rare school shootings that have happened over the last couple of decades, it is important to allow mobile phones on school property for emergency purposes."-Not neccessarily. Cell phones very can easily be made into bomb detonators. Terrorists have used this and it has killed several people. They are very easy to make (refer to the video I have provided). As you can see from the video, the cell phones can be used both as bombs or as bomb starters. By having teachers confiscate every cell phone, students would be unable to detonate their cell phone bombs had they made one for terrorist intentions upon the school.-If there were an emergency, teachers would give the students back their phones.http://www.officer.com...http://www.textually.org...http://news.cnet.com..."I think it is important to teach children how to be responsible with their electronic devices and school is the perfect setting to do that."-I guess so, but it is at the cost of many children losing their cell phones to begin with that they begin to be more responsible. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Addendum: -As mentioned in my rebuttal, cell phones can be used as dangerous weapons, and having a teacher confiscate all the students' cell phones will reduce the danger. |
33 | fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00004-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a "bad excuse to not eat meat".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a "bad excuse to not eat meat".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions. |
13 | 1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it. |
7 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | 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; |
36 | edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is a sport People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled "Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport," published on cbssports.com: "Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible." Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled "Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.," published on the Huffington Post website: "Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But "no walking required"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf. |
33 | ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00003-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | The World Should Become Vegetarian My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me. |
1 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
13 | 669a08bf-2019-04-18T19:03:49Z-00004-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy Welcome to debate.org Dave, I'm sure you'll find it as a very interesting site. I'll let you begin the debate, otherwise I would have more space for my arguments. We'll follow this format if you like: R1: Doesn't matter. R2: Cases, I'll rebuttal. R3: Final rebuttal and voting issues on why you should be voted. Good luck on your first debate! |
45 | 35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The United States should cease production of the penny I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41" to make a 1" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny. |
13 | 8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00000-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, "Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save": "Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them." Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules. "The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves." As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support. "Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence." It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050. |
8 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan Let me note before my argument that I have PLENTY more stats and arguments to state but I will include that in my next argument these are just SOME of the reasons why Lebron is better I think lebron James is the best player in NBA history for many reasons , before I even get into the mutitude of stats and such that prove my point let me just say one thing , Jordan is a great player , in fact the second best player of all time , but Jordan could not take over a game in the many different ways Lebron does , Lebron can get everyone in loved and when he is on the court it is always 1 vs 5 until Lebron gets his teammates involved through his great play because we all know Lebron never has amazing teammates like Jordan did ( I will get into that in my next argument ) and the one thing even Lebron haters or Jordan lovers or at least anyone with a working brain will know is that Lebron is the most dominating physical specimen that has ever been in the history of all sports since the beginning of time ! Lebron is a better athlete than Jordan and a better all around player even the professionals who ride the Jordan bandwagon will admit that , that's obvious , no one can ever compare to lebrons physical ability . Now , since that is out of the way , Lebron is the all time SF assist leader and will most likely end up in the top 5 or 10 in assists leaders of all positions , lebron spreads the floor like no other player in the history of the sport , just like Scottie Pippen said , when lebron james is on the court , everyone is a threat to score . When Jordan played he was and still is the best scorer of all time but he didn't have the vision lebron has , it's not because of Jordan's amazing carrying abilities that no one on his team scored in double digits most of the time , it's because Jordan had the ball more than anyone by far and more time then not , he shot . That's why lebron is better in all around offense , lebron has a better FG% than Jordan because if he doesn't have a good shot he can throw a 40mph pass to a big down low that no one would consider open before that but lebron can get the pass in , or he can pass it across court to the open man at the 3 . Jordan , when he couldn't get a good shot off , he would still shoot it and miss most the time . Lebron all around offense , is better , lebron can get offensive boards , pass , and execute plays better than Jordan . On the defensive end , Jordan's DPOY doesn't mean anything when compared to lebron , back then lebron would have won multiple DPOY's , lebron can guard every position , he can guard 1-4 and lock down if he needs to and if he needs to be can guard a center for a play and have a pretty good chance against him . Jordan can only guard the SG and PG and the occasional SF but most were too big and strong for him , Jordan could steal the ball better than lebron but lebron can get boards and block better than Jordan , for example Lebron's signature chase down block . Now when the argument of who's more clutch comes , Lebron's most resent buzzer beater officially ties jordan for career made shots in the last seconds of a playoff game . And Jordan got almost all of his after he was 30 , and lebron is 30 now so lebron of you wanna be realistic , will end up getting more buzzer beaters than Jordan , and lebron in the lat 15 seconds of a game , has a better percentage than Jordan . So statistically and technically lebron is more clutch than Jordan ESPECIALLY in the playoffs . Unlike Lebron , without good teammates Jordan was HORRIBLE in the playoffs , did you know before Pippen joined him MJ was 1-9 in the playoffs in his career , 1-9 ! !! ! Lebron has NEVER LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS ! He is the first player since the legend celtics to go to 5 finals in a row ! Jordan couldn't even get past the first round without Pippen ! ! Lebron is the best playoff player in the history of the NBA he just recently passed Jordan in amount of 30-5-5 playoff games with 52 but he has gotten more since then which means he has around 53-55 Jordan has 51 and lebron is no where near done in the playoffs ! 2 playoff games ago lebron put up numbers no other player in the NBA history has ever gotten , he just put up 37-18-13 IN THE PLAYOFFS ! No player has ever put up those numbers IN THE SEASON OR PLAYOFFS EVER ! Lebron is the best player ever when it comes to playoffs in the history of the NBA and you cannot argue that cause crushing I've said is facts . Lebron has countless records already over Jordan but j only have like 15 more minutes to answer this so i can't go into all of them until next round ! Lebron has the better per game stats than Jordan he averages more blocks steals and rebounds than Jordan for their careers after this past season stats get out into Lebron's career averages , lebron has somewhere just over 60 career playoff triple doubles in his 9th playoff appearance , Jordan has 39 after his 13th playoff appearance , lebron is ranked number 1 in NBA history with the highest scoring average per game on elimination playoff games with 31 , he is number 1 in games in the playoffs with at least 25-10-5 with 32 times , lebron took 726 games to reach at least 20,000 points and 5,000 assist , Jordan took 926 , Scottie Pippen told Alonzo mourning that lebron would " kick michael Jordan's *** in basketball , lebron has 159 10+ assist games , Jordan has 88 , lebron is the only player in history to reach 2,000 pts , 500 rebounds , 500 assists , and 100 steals for at least 7 seasons in a row , Jordan has only 2 of those seasons and there not even in a row , those were just his two best seasons , lebron has the most 30 point triple doubles Ever with 19 and Jordan has 17 , lebron is 60% in the last 5 seconds of the 4th quarter or overtime , Jordan is 45% , NOW MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS NEXT PART . .. . ALL OF THE STATS I JUST POSTED WERE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAST SEASON SO AMOST ALL OF THESE STATS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AND BIGGER SINCE THEN INCLUDING THE PLAYOFF STATS BECAUSE LEBRON HAS BEEN AMAZING THIS PLAYOFFS , all of Jordan's stats are never getting better , his career is over , lebron has at least 5-8 more seasons so he will surpass MJ in almost everything . Scottie Pippen said out of his own mouth , " Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play the game , but Lebron may be the greatest player to ever play the game . .. No guy is not a threat when Lebron is on the court. " Skip Bayless of First Take said " Lebron is a better all around player than Jordan . He has more skills than Michael . " Stephen A Smith replied " we know that " Another debate Skip and Stephen also had was that skip thought MJ could guard Lebron and Stephen A Smith replied " you must be crazy , too big , too strong , too much of a locomotive coming at him , now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wouldn't be Michael Jordan , but if that's the case , why did Michael Jordan need Scottie Pippen to defend Magic Johnson when he won the world championship the first time around ? " which proves that MJ couldn't guard Lebron , Stephen A went on to say that Magic Johnson's athleticism doesn't scratch the surface of Lebron's . And the flight man himself has said he was guarding Lebron , he can't stop Lebron from driving to the right and going to the hole on him . Lebron is the best all around player of all time and that is a fact based on his stats , he can literally do everything . Now listen I understand Jordan is 6/6 in the finals it's obvious your gunna bring that up anyone would unless they're horrible at debating but I will address the 6/6 in the finals in my next argument but lebron will win 6 finals if not more in his career , and definitly have all of the finals MVP's unlike Kobe . Now I am going to paste a list of Lebron's career accomplishments REGULAR SEASON RECORDS 1st place all-time in career assists by a forward. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Week with 48 nominations. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Month with 29 nominations. 2nd place all-time in points scored in All-Star games with 278. Behind Kobe Bryant's 280. Only player in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists for their career. [24] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in four consecutive seasons. [25] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in a single season for at least seven seasons. [26] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, and 500 assists in a single season for at least seven seasons. [27] Only player in NBA history to win the NBA Player of the Month Award four times in two consecutive seasons. [28] Only player in NBA history to change teams after averaging at least 27 points, twice. [29] Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for 11 consecutive seasons. [30] One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for six consecutive seasons. [31] Includes Oscar Robertson, who achieved this eight consecutive times. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists in a single season for at least eight seasons. [32] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists in a season for at least six seasons. [33] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards in a span of five years. [34] Includes Bill Russell. One of two players in NBA history to win at least two NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for two different franchises. Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. One of two players in NBA history to lead NBA Finals in scoring, but play on a different team the following season. [35] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic Gold Medal in the same year. [36] Includes Michael Jordan (1992). One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in two consecutive seasons. Includes Michael Jordan. One of three players in NBA history to average 25 points per game for 11 consecutive seasons. Includes Jerry West and Karl Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP with a team, leave, and then come back. [37] Includes Allen Iverson and Moses Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, twice. [38] Includes Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 2000 points in a single season for at least nine seasons. [39] Includes Karl Malone (12 seasons), Michael Jordan (11), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (9). One of five players in NBA history to score at least 10 points in 500 consecutive games. [40] Includes Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Karl Malone. Currently 3rd all-time on the list with 641 games. One of five players in NBA history to win consecutive Finals MVP Awards. [41] Includes Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Kobe Bryant. One of five players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. [42] Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain. One of five players in NBA history to change teams after leading the league in triple-doubles. [43] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Lance Stephenson. One of five players in NBA history to score 50+ points multiple times for two different teams. [44] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Pete Maravich, Bernard King, and Carmelo Anthony. One of six players in NBA history to average at least 27 points for their career. [45] Includes Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Kevin Durant. One of eight players in NBA history to lead a franchise in points, assists, and steals. [46] Includes Kevin Garnett, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Randy Smith, Isiah Thomas, and Dwyane Wade. SeasonEdit Only player in NBA History to win the NBA Player of the Month Award five times in a single season. [28] Only player in NBA history to post 30 or more points and shoot over 60 percent for six consecutive games in a single season. [47] One of two players in NBA history to receive all but one vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award in a single season. [48] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 30 points and 10 assists in a calendar month while playing at least 10 games. [49] Includes Russell Westbrook (achieved this twice, in one season) One of three players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists in a single season. [50] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this five times) and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists in their rookie season. [51] Includes Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Tyreke Evans. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 31 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. [52] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this twice), Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to lead their team in all five major statistical categories (total points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals) in a single season (2008"09 season). [53] Includes Dave Cowens (1977"78), Scottie Pippen (1994"95) and Kevin Garnett (2002"03). One of six players in NBA history to record 2,000 points and 600 assists in a single season. [54] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this seven times), John Havlicek (achieved this twice), Tiny Archibald (achieved this twice), Derrick Rose, and Michael Jordan. GameEdit Only player in NBA history to record at least 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists in a game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 31 points, 19 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in a game. One of three players in NBA history to record at least 33 points, 12 assists, and 9 rebounds in a game. Includes Michael Jordan and Nate Robinson. One of four players in NBA history to record at least 61 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists in a game. Includes Michael Jordan, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady. PlayoffsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time being a leader in points, rebounds and assists on 37 occasions. 24 more games than next player on the list Larry Bird with (13). 1st place all-time for scoring average in game 7s with 34.4 points per game. 1st place all-time for scoring average in elimination games with 31.7 points per game. [55] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 88. [56][57] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 39. [56][58] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 58. 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 28. [59][60] T-1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists with 8. Tied with Oscar Robertson. 2nd place all-time for consecutive 20-point games to start a playoff career with 19. [61] Behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 27 consecutive games. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the playoffs with 14. Behind Magic Johnson's 30 triple-doubles. 3rd place all-time for consecutive 20-point playoff games with 54. [62] Behind Wilt Chamberlain's 126 and 92 consecutive games. T-3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 45 points with 7. [63] Tied with Allen Iverson. Behind Michael Jordan (23) and Wilt Chamberlain (8) 3rd place all-time for scoring average in first 150 playoff games with 28.1. [64] Behind Michael Jordan and Jerry West. 3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 30 points with 80. Behind Michael Jordan (109) and Kobe Bryant (88). 3rd place all-time for free throws made in the playoffs with 1,273. Behind Michael Jordan (1,463) and Kobe Bryant (1,320). Only player in NBA history to shoot at least 50 percent in 9 consecutive playoff games while attempting at least 15 FGs. [65] Only player in NBA history to average 28 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists in their playoff career. [66] Only player in NBA history to record 5,000 points, 1,500 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in their playoff career. Only player in NBA history to play 20 playoff games in 5 consecutive seasons. One of three players in NBA history to average 30 points and 10 rebounds when facing elimination. [67] Includes Wilt Chamberlain and Anthony Davis. One of nine players in NBA history to play in the NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey. Single PostseasonEdit Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 16 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason. [68][69] Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 14 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason, multiple times. [68][69] One of two players in NBA history to average 30 points, 11 rebounds and 8 assists per game in a single post season. Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to record 600 points, 200 rebounds, and 100 assists in a single postseason twice. Includes Larry Bird. SeriesEdit Only player in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists in a playoff series (2015 Conference Finals vs. Atlanta Hawks). [70] One of five players in NBA History to average at least 33.8 points and 7.3 assists in a playoff series. Includes Michael Jordan (achieved this three times), Jerry West (achieved twice), Tracy McGrady, and Stephen Curry. GameEdit Most consecutive points scored for a team in a playoff game with 25 consecutive points at the Detroit Pistons on May 31, 2007. [71] Only player in NBA history to score at least 49 points in a playoff game for two different franchises. [72] Only player in NBA history to record at least 37 points, 18 rebounds, and 13 assists in a playoff game. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists in a playoff game. [73] Includes Wilt Chamberlain. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in their playoff debut. [74] Includes Johnny McCarthy and Magic Johnson. NBA FinalsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time for triple-doubles with at least 30 points in the NBA Finals with 3. 1st place all-time for three-point field goals attempted in the NBA Finals with 167. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the NBA Finals with 6. Behind Magic Johnson's 8 triple-doubles. T-2nd place all-time for three-point field goals made in the NBA Finals with 55. Tied with Ray Allen. Behind Robert Horry's 56. Only player in NBA history to play in five consecutive NBA Finals, doing so with different teams. One of three players in NBA history to play in the All-Star Game and NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. SeriesEdit Most points scored in first three games with (123) in 2015 NBA Finals. 1st place all-time for most points scored and assisted per game in an NBA Finals series with 57.7[75] 2nd place all-time for highest percentage of team points in an NBA Finals series. [76] Behind Michael Jordan's 38.4%; James accounted for 38.3% of his team's points in the 2015 NBA Finals. Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists in an NBA Finals series (accomplished this three times). [77] Only player in NBA history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finals series. Only player in NBA history to average 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists in an NBA Finals series. James averaged 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, 8.8 assists in the 2015 NBA Finals. One of three players in NBA history to score 40 points in at least three games in a single NBA Finals series. Includes Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. GameEdit T-1st place all-time for points scored in an NBA Finals Game 1 loss with 44. Tied with Shaquille O'Neal. Only player in NBA history to score at least 40 points and record at least half of his team's assists in an NBA Finalsgame, achieved this twice in a single NBA Finals series. [78] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in an NBA Finals game. [79] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 14 rebounds, and 11 assists in an NBA Finals game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 32 points, 18 rebounds, and 9 assists in an NBA Finals game. One of two players in NBA history to produce outright game highs of points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finalsgame. [80] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 35 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists in an NBA Finals game. [81] Includes James Worthy. One of two players in NBA history to record a triple-double with at least 40 points in an NBA Finals game. [82] Includes Jerry West. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an elimination game in an NBA Finals game. [83] Includes Bill Russell and James Worthy. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in Games 6 and 7 of the NBA Finals in the same season. [84] Includes Jerry West (achieved this twice), Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. One of five players in NBA history to score at least 40 points in a regular-season game and then do it again against the same opponent in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [85] Includes George Mikan, Jerry West, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant. One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an NBA Finals clinching game. [86] Includes Magic Johnson (twice, 1982 and 1985), Larry Bird (1986), James Worthy (1988), Tim Duncan (2003), and Draymond Green (2015). One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [87] Includes Wilt Chamberlain (1967), Walt Frazier (1972), Dave Cowens (1976), Magic Johnson (1991), and Jason Kidd(2002). Youngest player recordsEdit James owns numerous NBA "youngest player" records. He is the youngest1 To be selected #1 overall draft pick (18 years of age). [citation needed] To be named NBA Rookie of the Year (19 years of age). [citation needed] To score most points by prep-to-pro player in their professional debut with (25) To record a triple-double (20 years, 20 days). [88] Recorded 27 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists on January 19, 2005 vs. Portland Trail Blazers. To record a triple-double in the playoffs. (21 years, 113 days). [citation needed] Recorded 32 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists on April 22, 2006 vs. Washington Wizards. To score 30 points in a game (18 years, 334 days). [citation needed] Recorded 33 points on November 29, 2003 vs. Memphis Grizzlies To score 40 points in a game (19 years, 88 days). [citation needed] Recorded 41 points on March 27, 2004 vs. New Jersey Nets. To score 2,000 points in a season (2004"05). [citation needed] To average at least 30 points per game in the NBA. To be awarded All-NBA honors (2004"05). [citation needed] To be named to the All-NBA first team (21 years, 138 days). [citation needed] To win an All-Star Game MVP (21 years, 55 days). [citation needed] To lead the league in All-Star voting (22 years, 26 days). [citation needed] To score 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons (26 years of age). [citation needed] To win Most Valuable Player award four times (28 years of age). [citation needed] To reach 4,000 playoff points (29 years of age). [89] To reach 5,000 playoff points (30 years of age). Every point milestone from 1,000 up to 24,000[90][91][92][93][94][95] |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that "bearing" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms. |
49 | b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00086-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Crime cameras often have no one watching due to limited resources. "Shambles over crime cameras". Western Daily Press. November 28, 2008 - "Crime in Cirencester town centre is going unmonitored because there is no one to watch the CCTV full-time. Cotswold District Council has failed to replace the contract to monitor the cameras in the town. Police community support officers have had to be drafted in to fill the breach on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. But at all other times the cameras have been on automatic, with police reviewing tapes after an incident." |
2 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
5 | 8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security I thought I understood it better than I do. I give, I don't really even undersatnd the system, so I can't really defend it, can I? Thanks for the debate, that was fun! |
32 | 1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00002-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Lowering the voting age to 16 Why should other rights still be granted to those who are 18+ and voting should be an exception? The idea that there is recession right now is a matter of controversy among pundits in the academic subject economics. The idea that getting into the wars was negative is certainly an opinion. Therefore, it is your opinion that America has been "messed up." "So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?" the opponent asks. The "why not?" approach isn't an argument for the opponent's position. The opponent has a burden of proof. Why would doing this better American politics? |
6 | 905b7061-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | paying to go to college freash out of school "you cannot get a scholership for the colleges down here." Why not. I sent you the link. You can get a scholarship almost anywhere. You have to put effort into it. "and as for funding well the goverment can pay for childeren to go to school so why can't they pay for say 16-19 for a free college course then?" I can imagine that the UK funds to help children go to school so people can have a basic knowledge. Higher education should not be included. If the government does include higher education the funds would have to come from somewhere. Where do they get it? Tax more? Really, do you guys really need to be taxed more than you are now? Take away from the children? Really, do not let 5-year-old Timmy goes to schools so 18 year old you can. "these teenagers cannot apply for these sort of things trust me i have tried." Try harder! "and you want reason why they should be entilted to a free college course? 1) becuase it gives them a chance at what they want to do without worrying about the cost" What about students that have to pay for it b/c their family makes more. Now you are unloading a ton of people into a work field b/c the government picks up the tab. Now the family's that cannot get into the government program have to struggle for their kids to go to college. "2)becuase half of them do not have money" So is it fair for the half that does? "3)besucase its just not right that you should have to pay for it all" Why not? "4)not only do you have to pay for the fees you have to pay fopr trips theres 4 off the top of my head" Oh not, you have to pay for services! What? It is not all free in this world! Look I know it is hard but hey that is the cost of higher education. I have given you some ways to do it. You have to put the effort into it. As of now you have not shown me that you have tried hard. VOTE PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRO |
36 | 331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00005-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is golf a sport I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you. |
33 | eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00004-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism is a good idea. However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians. |
13 | 66b2945d-2019-04-18T18:09:27Z-00006-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion. In inertial confinement fusion, which is a newer line of research, laser or ion beams are focused very precisely onto the surface of a target, which is a pellet of D-T fuel, a few millimetres in diameter. This heats the outer layer of the material, which explodes outwards generating an inward-moving compression front or implosion that compresses and heats the inner layers of material. The core of the fuel may be compressed to one thousand times its liquid density, resulting in conditions where fusion can occur. The energy released then heats the surrounding fuel, which may also undergo fusion leading to a chain reaction (known as ignition) as the reaction spreads outwards through the fuel. The time required for these reactions to occur is limited by the inertia of the fuel (hence the name), but is less than a microsecond. So far, most inertial confinement work has involved lasers. Recent work at Osaka University's Institue of Laser Engineering in Japan suggests that ignition may be achieved at lower temperature with a second very intense laser pulse guided through a millimetre-high gold cone into the compressed fuel, and timed to coincide with the peak compression. This technique, known as 'fast ignition', means that fuel compression is separated from hot spot generation with ignition, making the process more practical. In inertial confinement fusion, which is a newer line of research, laser or ion beams are focused very precisely onto the surface of a target, which is a pellet of D-T fuel, a few millimetres in diameter. This heats the outer layer of the material, which explodes outwards generating an inward-moving compression front or implosion that compresses and heats the inner layers of material. The core of the fuel may be compressed to one thousand times its liquid density, resulting in conditions where fusion can occur. The energy released then heats the surrounding fuel, which may also undergo fusion leading to a chain reaction (known as ignition) as the reaction spreads outwards through the fuel. The time required for these reactions to occur is limited by the inertia of the fuel (hence the name), but is less than a microsecond. So far, most inertial confinement work has involved lasers. Recent work at Osaka University's Institue of Laser Engineering in Japan suggests that ignition may be achieved at lower temperature with a second very intense laser pulse guided through a millimetre-high gold cone into the compressed fuel, and timed to coincide with the peak compression. This technique, known as 'fast ignition', means that fuel compression is separated from hot spot generation with ignition, making the process more practical. A completely different concept, the 'Z-pinch' (or 'zeta pinch'), uses a strong electrical current in a plasma to generate X-rays, which compress a tiny D-T fuel cylinder. Since the late 1940's, researchers have used magnetic fields to confine hot, turbulent mixtures of ions and free electrons called plasmas so they can be heated to temperatures of 100 to 300 million kelvins (180 million to 540 million degrees Fahrenheit). Under those conditions, positively charged deuterium nuclei (containing one neutron and one proton) and tritium nuclei (two neutrons and one proton) can overcome the repulsive electrostatic force that keeps them apart and "fuse" into a new, heavier helium nucleus with two neutrons and two protons. The helium nucleus has a slightly smaller mass than the sum of the masses of the two hydrogen nuclei, and the difference in mass is released as kinetic energy according to Albert Einstein's famous formula E=mc². The energy is converted to heat as the helium nucleus, also called an alpha particle, and the extra neutrons interact with the material around them. In the 1970's, scientists began experimenting with powerful laser beams to compress and heat the hydrogen isotopes to the point of fusion, a technique called inertial confinement fusion, or ICF. In the "direct drive" approach to ICF, powerful beams of laser light are focused on a small spherical pellet containing micrograms of deuterium and tritium. The rapid heating caused by the laser "driver" makes the outer layer of the target explode. In keeping with Isaac Newton's Third Law ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"), the remaining portion of the target is driven inwards in a rocket-like implosion, causing compression of the fuel inside the capsule and the formation of a shock wave, which further heats the fuel in the very center and results in a self-sustaining burn known as ignition. The fusion burn propagates outward through the cooler, outer regions of the capsule much more rapidly than the capsule can expand. Instead of magnetic fields, the plasma is confined by the inertia of its own mass – thus the term inertial confinement fusion. |
34 | 562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00005-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networks are beneficial to our society! I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first. |
41 | bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00003-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. I will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that "The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. "(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that "Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student's tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. "(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that "It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public's budget constraint has been lifted. "(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies "are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains ""Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor's degrees. " B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that "Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. " (6) Also from the AASCU, "Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. " C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. "Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it's imperative that you handle these loans wisely. " "Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. "(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters' income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. "The Impact of College Debt and costs". Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com... |
32 | 70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00007-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Banned from voting.... It's all about style you say? Justify that. What is style? Kind of like a stupid supermodel I would say. And you? It's what is on the outside that counts? You make me sick. |
47 | 3427d4f1-2019-04-18T19:44:02Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | is homework bad Beehive hairdo, 45 on the hip Patrolwoman Saunders, don't you give her no whip Took me to the station for a breathtest then back to the bedroom for some house-arrest [CHORUS:] Women in uniform, sometimes they look so cold Women in uniform, but, Oh! They feel so warm Coming back to London on a 747 Stewardess made me feel like I'm in heaven Looking up the aisle to see what I could see She leaned over said; Give it to me White apron, brown leather shoes The nurse at the clinic left my heart all bruised Gave me a massage, sprained my right Now she takes my temperature every night [REPEAT CHORUS] Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Women in uniform Commando raid on the Lebanese border Sergeant Anita, she gives the order Khaki jacket and a love gun Baby, I surrender, let's have some fun [REPEAT CHORUS] [SOLO] [REPEAT CHORUS] Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Khaki, white and blue Women in uniform, coming after you Women, women, Women in uniform Women, women, Women in uniform [REPEAT CHORUS (fading away)] |
31 | 74b51a96-2019-04-18T18:54:13Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate. Thanks for the timely rebuttal, I'll go over my points and then go to his points Obs 1 -We do cover philosophy. They're called Kritiks. They say that the plan enforces a negative philosophy, and instead of doing the plan, we destroy said philosophy. Obs 2 -It is generally known that Policy debaters are better because they A. know how to weed out the stupid arguments and therefore can take out all parts of the arguments B. We know how to handle under extreme pressure, ex. someone looking over our shoulder, asking a detail about our case C. Like I said, Personal experiences, you don't have to believe me, but it is true Obs 3 First of all, I'm not talking about the very smart, handsome and great judges that are probably going to vote on this debate ;). I'm talking about those judges that are not tabula rosa, The ones who vote pro every time no matter the issue. Not the Very smart judges who may not have debated in high school. The Judges they got at the last second who don't know anything, Unlike the people who are going to vote on this debate Obs 4 - Nobody debates like policy, but extend my defense of my obs 1. That it helps you take out all arguments, plus what job do you have where you use pf debating skills_____. Policy jobs- Congress Obs 5 b. There are three "quality" arguments made most of the time. Policy has multiple good arguments made at the same time c. But with quantity, you have to use debating skills. to figure out which are quality arguments d. we have lots of clash, if you don't, you will loose Obs 6. - to quote the GA state champion of PF, This is Pf, I don't need evidence. You don't have to believe that that the examples are true. But whether you do or don't, I saw them. Obs 7. -in cx people who do waste time, loose. In cross-fire, people who waste time get time. The point is that it is easier to abuse cross fire. Plus, we have a sexual innuendo. Onto their case Obs 1 - I'm not arguing that pf does not have value. besides if this site had policy form debate, I would jump on it so fast, but they don't. Policy turns Pf. extend observation 2. Policy helps you debate pf and therefore, all their advantages go to policy 1. we were all novices at one time. We learned how to do it, it just requires commitment 2. Well if the general population cannot understand something, they need to learn, we need a smarter generation. everyone can better themselves. Elitism is inevitable, if people are unwilling to change 3. sure, why not waste time and money debating on something you have no plan of solving for? Why not? let's debate whether kittens are cute or not. 4. Not everyone wants to do policy. that's ok. We have to debate opinion. |
17 | 86fcaef8-2019-04-18T12:12:08Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Legalization of Marijuana I just realized that my topic was a bit vague. What I should have said was "Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use". While I still disagree with medical uses, I am most passionate about it being legalized for recreational use. I strongly believe it should not be. You were right regarding the THC chemical. I have no problem doing some more research as you requested, but I hope you can respect that I feel there are better ways to handle medical problems than using marijuana. So, with this topic established, how do you feel about legalizing marijuana for recreational use? The way I see it, doing so would greatly endanger communities. |
22 | c7592558-2019-04-18T15:53:30Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israel's Current Actions in Gaza are Justified Dear Con, I don't mean to be rude, but your argument strongly seems to imply that you didn't read mine whatsoever. In fact, my previous argument rebukes most points you have made, as I strongly expected what you would have to say. However, I will still attempt to create a strong rebuttal for each of your arguments in this round. You state that in 1967, Israel invaded Palestine and occupied the territory until 2005. Though this may be true, I do not think you have understood the true reason behind Israel's invasion. The Six-Day War (Source 1), a brief military conflict taking place between June 5 and 10, 1967, was the third Arab-Israeli War with a decisive Israeli victory. The war was sparked by a range of unprovoked attacks by Palestinian guerrilla militias based in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon against Israel, leading to Israeli counterattacks. Notice that much like the conflict today, Palestine was the first to strike offensively, followed by an Israeli defense operation. Israel, expecting more attacks from the Palestinian and Arabic enemies, decided to invade before they could be invaded themselves, and began a strike in the Jordanian West Bank, followed by an air battle with Syria. Egypt (another one of Israel's enemies) eventually allied itself with Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, planning to invade Israel. However, Israel foresaw the invasion, and wanting to attack before attacked itself, Israel staged a surprise air attack on Egypt, destroying its air force. Israel soon incapacitated most of Syria and Jordan's military as well, leading to a decisive Israeli victory. Israel gained Gaza, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and full control of Jerusalem. Obviously, though Israel was the clear victor, the war was provoked by Palestine and its allies, all of whom were planning an invasion of Israel and provoked the defensively-driven nation with guerrilla attacks. Israel eventually closed settlements in Gaza in 2005. My opponent claims that this war provoked Gaza's airstrikes on Israel in 2014, however, Israel is not to blame. Obviously, Israel only engaged in the Six Day War to prevent itself from being attacked, and in no way would want to attack Palestine otherwise. My opponent next claims, correctly, that Israel has a blockade on Gaza that has resulted in the lack of air transportation, food, electricity, and sufficient employment. How is this Israel's fault? Israel has no responsibility whatsoever to trade with Gaza, and should not be blamed for anything relating to the matter. Israel is simply blockading itself from Gaza for protection. Obviously, many people of Gaza want to destroy Israel and its citizens, so Israel has every right for a blockade. If Israel was to allow access to Gaza, terrorists would immediately spill in and start attacking the people of Israel. This can be proven by the tunnels uncovered on the Gaza-Israel border that were used, before their rightful destruction, to transport terrorists, bombs, and weapons into Israeli territory (Source 2). As mentioned in my above argument, Hamas's charter includes a preamble stating "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Source 3). A Hamas statement also claims "The day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say "O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." This quotation was also mentioned in my previous argument, obviously you did not understand it was there, as you repeatedly state that Gaza is innocent in its warfare against Israel. As shown, if Israel were to lessen the blockade (Source 4) against Gaza, militants would swarm into Israel, intentionally trying to destroy the nation's citizens. Israel is at no fault for the lack of materials in Gaza. You say that 'Gaza is in bad shape due to actions taken by the Israelis', the correct statement would be 'Gaza is in bad shape due to the actions of itself against the Israelis'. If Gaza was not constantly trying to destroy Israel, then Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza. You next state that the cause of the recent attacks on Israel is due to the occupation of Palestinian territory. As stated earlier, the occupation of this territory is due to the fact that if Palestine was not closely watched over, it would continue its bloodthirsty assaults on Israel. For its own protection, Israel needed to occupy Palestine in order to reassure the safety of its own citizens. Your next accusation against Israel is its 2008 attack on Gaza (Source 5). Once more, you do not provide the cause of any of Israel's military actions. This one, like the current conflict, was merely a response to rocket and mortar firings from Gaza. As I cannot stress enough, all of the situations you have mentioned are conflicts started by Gaza with an Israeli response. Obviously, Gaza is intent on destroying Israel, while Israel only wants to protect itself. You next stress that more people from Gaza are killed during these historical conflicts than those of Israel. This in no way means that Gaza is good and Israel is bad. It simply means, as stressed in my previous argument, that Israel has a better defense system than Gaza. Israel also wants to protect its citizens, while Gaza wants its people to die in order to gain international sympathy. Gaza is intentionally hiding its rockets and weapons in schoolhouses and U.N. facilities so Israeli militias are forced to attack these locations. Gaza wants its people to die so it can have sympathy from other nations. Just because Israel has less casualties does not mean it is worse. You also stress that Gaza makes recurrent calls for peace. This could not be further from the truth. As mentioned above, Gaza intends to destroy Israel. Israel is the one initiating the cease-fires, while Hamas is the one refusing them (Source 6). Hamas has also broken nearly every U.N. or Israeli cease-fire offered to them. Finally, you state that Gaza is 'reacting to the injustice that was enacted on them by the Israelis'. This is a lie. Gaza wants to destroy Israel; any military actions taken by the Israeli militias have only been in the names of defense and protection. Just because casualties in Gaza are higher, Gaza is not innocent - Israel merely has a better defense. If Israel's defense was of the same caliber than that of Gaza, then Israeli casualties would be in the thousands. You state that Israel would search for a diplomatic resolution if it wanted peace - every day, Israel tries to do just this. War is a last case scenario for Israel, which would much rather prefer peace. You constantly make assumptions and lies about Israel's intentions that are meant to belittle the constantly-attacked nations, rather Gaza is the one who is responsible for the fault of the war. Once more, I do not believe that you read my last argument, as it rebuked every statement that you made. This argument is simply to reinforce my beliefs. Before you again make accusations against Israel, please thoroughly read my last argument - it is the basis of my opinion, which you obviously do not wish to understand. I again wish to say that I do not wish to be rude or offensive whatsoever, I am merely defending my beliefs. Have a nice day, and I wish to read your next argument soon! 1. http://www.britannica.com... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://avalon.law.yale.edu... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2008%E2%80%9309) 6. http://www.bbc.com... Note: Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by nations such as the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Egypt, the European Union, and Israel. |
12 | 6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Public Funded Birth Control I suppose my argument will have to be that the public as a whole through the government should fund nothing of the sort, and that only the select group of people who want to fund it ought to. |
1 | c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | There should not be a teacher tenure. Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that 'there should be a teacher tenure.' Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that 'teacher tenure' should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word 'tenure'.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that's required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers' academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo's academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com... |
26 | d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00004-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America This debate follows the standard rules of parliamentary debating. http://www.apdaweb.org... for rules 1st round acceptance only. 2-4 are debate. |
6 | 8b34cdfe-2019-04-18T16:10:18Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | A book is not worth reading unless someone wants to ban it My opponent has forfeited this debate. I've given a rebuttal at length of all of CON's arguments. |
27 | 90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called "illegal guns." Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world. In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws? Also your "evidence" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the "why" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact. --- On your conclusion: Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws. On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita. On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the "why" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England. --- So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided. |
19 | dadf6f7e-2019-04-18T14:21:32Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Mirriage Starting off Con claims that the government did not legalize same-sex marriage because they 'cared about gays' but rather because Obama wanted to stay president. This statement shows how little knowledge Con has of the topic. When gay marriage was legalized, Obama was already well into his 2nd term, meaning he could not have 'stayed President' for any later than he already would have. Secondly, Obama did not legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Court did [1]. Con then gives his hypothesis on why people are gay, and concedes that what he had just said had no value and, 'what I said in the previous segment was nothing but my point of view'. Con then moves onto his arguments; that being gay causes depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. Con fails to link us to any sort of evidence for his claims, therefore his argument can be dismissed as such. I recommend he provide links in the future. Even if we take his argument as true despite the lack of any sort of evidence, the impact of it does not benefit his side, nor harm mine. Why does gays being more likely to have suicidal thoughts have to do with legalizing gay marriage, Con does not explain why gay marriage should be illegal. If anything, we should do everything we can to fix the harm that is being done to gays as Con lists for us, we should therefore legalize gay marriage to at least reduce these problems. Con's argument is completely negated.In the second argument Con talks about the health risks that are involved with being gay. I still fail to see how this shows that gay marriage should be illegal. Con does not even mention gay marriage, Con needs to stay on topic.In the end, the two arguments Con has presented have had nothing to do with gay marriage being legalized, and both have no impact whatsoever.[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com... |
50 | 4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...; |
7 | 7cb4f1d5-2019-04-18T16:18:51Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School I will rebut my opponents points and rebuttal. "The problem with phones that the school supplies is that there often aren't enough of them. Allowing students cell phones on them allows for a quicker way to contact their guardians that is also easier to do. In addition, cell phones are good to posses in that during a dire emergency students may not be able to reach office phones." There are usually 4-5 phones in a school's main office, and I sincerely doubt that there would at all times be a long line to use one of the said phones. Yes, it is quicker to contact guardians, but for what reason? As I've stated, they can simply use the office phones. What kind of emergency could be so dire that all teachers, student assistants, and the main office lose full phone connection? That's a serious flaw, students don't need to use a cellphone in case of an emergency because said people would already have one on them. I believe I said EXACTLY this last round, and last round I also asked you to clarify a "Dire emergency" to me. "No, what I am saying is that if there is a schedule change or anything of the sort then students will be able to contact their their parents when otherwise they could not." Like I said, use an office phone. NEVER have I seen or experienced a line in my schools main office for the use of one of it's 5 phones. "It is not just school shootings. Cell phones are also useful during times where the ambulance must be called immediately because a student is in grave danger or in anything alike that. The fact remains that cell phones should be very highly regarded in any school." Yes, I agree cell phones should be highly regarded in school, but not by students. As I've stated before, If said student is in "Grave danger", why couldn't a teacher or student assistant call 911? Are they not capable? Their's usually ONE teacher in a class, and they are perfectly capable of pressing a few buttons on their cell phones. Students don't need cell phones if there are already 28 with the teachers, and 5 phones in the main office. "Punishing everyone because of the action of a few students is not fair. Anyways, that wouldn"t be a problem because schools have the right to create rules where cell phones cannot be taken out during inappropriate times, and if they are the school has the right to punish the student accordingly." As I've reasoned and stated, said students don't need their cell phones at school. Their not being punished, the educational facility is just taking a extra precaution for the welfare of the students. Cell phones are distracting to students, therefore it can hinder a students focus in class. "Again, if the situation is grave where 911 needs to be called immediately then it is good for the students to have cell phones on them, especially f they are not any authorities or the office. In addition, the danger does not necessarily have to be very attention grabbing, like a school shooting, where people in the area would know what is going on." What? For real? Honestly, what situation could PLAUSIBLY render the phones in the main office ineffective? And what do you mean by "authorities"? Do you mean teachers? I doubt there is any situation where ALL teachers would be absent of the building, and they would leave ALL students in by themselves without supervision, it's also absurd to think an emergency could happen in those EXACT few moments when they are vulnerable. Since that theory is highly implausible and ludicrous, we can say that that point has been countered completely. "The fact is, there is nothing to lose when allowing students cell phones. They provide the benefits of schedule changes, calling parent guardians, contacting authorities ect. while providing a certain safety net for children. If cell phones are being used inappropriately the school has the right to implement strict rules regarding cell phone usage to deter inappropriate use." Yeah, there is actually a LOT to use when ALL students have access to their cell phones, their focus! Schools serve the purpose of educating students with life skills and technical skills, and texting and chatting on their cell phones helps that purpose how? The students don't need a cellphone to make a schedule change, there are office phones for that. The students don't need to call parent guardians with their cell phones, there are office phones for that. And teachers have cellphones to contact authorities with, so that point has been rendered incorrect. Yes, schools CAN implement rules to deter inappropriate usage of cellphones, but students have, and always will somehow find a way around the system, it's a fact. Overall, I've effectively countered all my opponents arguments, and added more points on top of that. I would like to points out that my opponent's argument revolves around the idea that a "dire emergency" will render phone communication in the school ineffective, and that all teachers cellphones would be disabled as well. He rebuts with this point for ALL my arguments, and that in itself is a major flaw. Opponent, explain how such a "dire emergency" could render ALL outside communication ineffective, and why we should let students have cellphones JUST IN CASE that it happens. I'm highly interested in what you'll come up with. |
4 | c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Why did you just post your argument a second time, I would like you to reply to what I have said, because I fell I made a valid argument. |
28 | 10dba703-2019-04-18T16:38:10Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | should prostitution be legalised Some of your points/reason are repeated, basically you are trying to say- Legalization of prostitution gives legal rights to pimps or sex industry to expand the prostitution , and it doesn't promotes women's health , doesn't enhance women's choice and may cause increment in child prostitution. So my point is : Legalization of prostitution doesn't means that anyone who wants to run prostitution can got permission from government, now government's have control on it. After legalization, pimps have to take license from government to run the prostitution. And practicing of unfair means by them can cancel their license, so it creates a fear for them, so they can follow the prescribe rule to run the prostitution. In case of expansion, So it is a choice, if anyone prefer it so she/he can go in it and if pimps try to make force on her/him then she/he can go for complain. Legalization of prostitution, doesn't means that governments give allowance for child prostitution, there would be minimum age which is decided by government, same as government define minimum age for marriage and minimum age for drinking, and if any case are found regarding child prostitution there should be complain of it and should be punished. Legalization of prostitution definitely protect women(prostitutes) because now what they are doing is legal so they can go to cop or state court if any unfair means happens to them and got a help from a state. State would not give licence for street prostitution to pimps, and also after legalization government have information of where prostitution is going on because every sex industry or brothel's which are running now they try to got a legal license. After legalization of prostitution state would conduct protective steps to ensure health and safe environment for prostitutes and provides labour rights and prostitutes have identity in society and if 100% is not followed but still these condition is much better than condition what prostitutes suffer in these day's. |
4 | 6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00003-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment in schools Accepted.Corporal punishment should be used in schools.Corporal punishment is defined as:"Physical punishment" http://www.google.ca...; |
38 | cd0c01b4-2019-04-18T16:30:34Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | should marijuana be legalized You should check your facts before posting because there have been no reported deaths from marijuana |
33 | d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00007-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | THW become Vegetarians In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments. |
35 | 8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00003-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video games encourage violent behavior In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response. |
12 | 13cf67ef-2019-04-18T11:35:35Z-00001-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | There Should be a Birth Tax on Blacks If you don't like blacks, and you'd like them gone forever, a birth tax is not going to get it done. What happens when they don't pay the tax? They get thrown in jail, and we have to pay for their room and board. When they get out, they'll just make more kids. A tax is pointless. A better idea is to neuter and spay at birth. Now that would make a difference! |
16 | 79e2495a-2019-04-18T16:41:20Z-00004-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Legalization of Drugs Round one is for acceptance only , round two is for explaining your main arguments and the last round is for rebuttal , conservatives generally belive that drugs should be criminalised but i belive i have good arguments against this. |
15 | 79994762-2019-04-18T13:46:28Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones Definitions - Ought: A moral imperative, ie. saves lives International: Not only the US, but also the rest of the world. Ban: Merriam-Webster defines ban as to forbid people from using Military Use: Of or relating to the army Drones: Merriam-Webster defines drone as an unmanned aircraft or ship. If agreeable, I would like to limit this topic to armed drones, as those are the most debatable and most often used by foreign military's. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. |
18 | 5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a "rock star" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim "avoiding" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a "franchise" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also incidentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net investment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses property both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for example, a building in which the foundation's charitable and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance. |
26 | b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests Abolished means completely eliminate. Standardized testing serves a purpose. For example, it can provide data for educators and students on strengths and weaknesses. Data can be used to make improvements to education standards and set goals. As for high school graduation, a standardize test will make sure that high school graduates will be ready for the work world and/or college. |
41 | b2c44a0d-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Obama has botched the recovery 1. My opponent claims, "This debate comes down to whether you believe the economy is not recovering quickly because of a dramatic drop in consumer spending, or the fear that businesses have over an unsure policy future." I disagree. All recessions have a dramatic drop in consumer spending; it is not possible to have recession without that. The question is whether the policies of the Obama Administration have done a good job of restoring consumer and business confidence so that consumers will start spending again,businesses will start investing for the future. Clearly the policies have failed to restore anyone's confidence. We know the policies have failed for some reason, because recovery in the U.S. is substantially lagging the rest of the world and businesses are sitting with $2 trillion on the sidelines waiting for a promising future. Let's suppose that the mix of spending in the Stimulus was effective. I think that only the tax cuts had a significant effect, but let's suppose for the moment it was all effective. Then why would it be sound policy to be 19 months into the program with only about half the money spent? The point of stimulus is to inject money into the economy, so there is no possibility that not spending the money is good policy. Either the concept of the Stimulus was botched or he execution was botched, or both. The talk about "shovel-ready" projects makes one conclude that the execution was botched, because the supposed shovel-ready projects were not ready. Even a modest understanding of the government procurement cycle (specifications, solicitation, qualification of bidders, bids, evaluation, award, contracts, project plans, and reviews, all before work starts) would have precluded any foolish notion of "shovel-ready." In fact it didn't happen, and, for whatever reason, is the fault of the Administration. Virtually all of the recovery effort was in the Stimulus. Therefore, failing to spend the allocated money is reason by itself for affirming the resolution. If it ready did create two million jobs, which I do not believe it did, then all the money should have been spent by now to create four million, and not doing so is incompetent. Of the Stimulus money that has been spent, Con says that one-third went to tax cuts. I agree with Con that the tax cuts were effective, pretty much for the reasons that Con claimed them to be effective. Where we disagree is on the rest of the money. Not spending the money at all is, of course, ineffective, but spending it to create jobs at the rate of $194,000 per job is also inexcusable. Con claimed I did not dispute the CBO estimates of 1.4 to 3.3 millions jobs somehow created indirectly, but I did dispute it. The original promise of the Administration was that jobs would be counted on recovery.gov and that we could rely on those numbers. About 8 million jobs have been lost in the recession, and recovery.gov says that 750,000 were created. We need to create an additional 1 million jobs per year just to keep up with population growth. Even the 750,000 is suspect, because those are unaudited estimates of recipients. The original ground rules showed the Stimulus to be ineffective, so the ground rules were changed to the CBO claims. That is reason enough to doubt the CBO estimates. However, the huge range of 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs shows they are just guessing wildly, no doubt under political pressure. 2. The Stimulus was ineffective because of half the money being unspent and two-thirds of the rest being poorly spent. However, rather than focusing on the economy as top priority, the Administration went to extremes to undermine confidence in the recovery but initiating major new and uncertain health care costs, uncertain financial regulations, threats of expanded unionization, and promises of dramatic increases in energy costs. a. Con says it makes no sense that insurance companies have to increase their premiums to cover children under 26 now forced on to parents policies. It makes sense because it is not possible to insure more people at the same cost. People in the 18-25 age group do not have many disease-related health problems compared to older people, but they certainly have health problems. That age group is also disproportionately susceptible to accidents, drug and alcohol abuse, and gang violence. Ultimately Obama care will cover 40 million people at enormous cost. Most of that cost will be born by health insurance policy holders. For example, the $500 billion coming out of Medicare will have to be made up by the elderly who lost the benefits. Con dismisses the cost of filing 1099 forms because the are not due until 2012. The costs start immediately because account system changes, like new software, have to make to prepare for the data collection beginning on January 1, 2011. The 1099 costs, like the tanning salon tax, provoke fear of additional surprises buried in the health care bill. Increasing demand without increasing supply will drive up costs dramatically. Con claims that the free market will create more doctors and medical professionals. The supply is inelastic, o in the free market prices will rise sharply.. There is abut a twelve year lag due to the time it takes to train a new physician. There are serious limits on the sizes of medical school classes imposed by the lack of availability of instructors. Professionals educated overseas must still complete residency in the US, and those slots are currently at capacity. b. the Financial Reform act poses many uncertainties, and that uncertainty hangs as a fear over businesses and consumers alike. We are already seeing increased bank fees and tightening of credit. The requirement of every financial institution to have an affirmative action office to hire minorities into the industry is rand new and unprecedented overhead. c. Con claimed that businesses are not worried about cap and trade. How could a business that depends upon energy not worry about doubling or quadrupling energy prices? The reason the legislation stalled in Congress was the worry of representatives from the mid-West about the destruction of heavy industry. California, ahead of the curve, has dramatically increased energy prices. The result was half the heavy industry leaving the state. The oil industry is second only to tourism in the Gulf States. It is unrealistic to suppose that BP is going to support all the lost jobs forever. If nothing else, it would drive the American subsidiary of BP into bankruptcy. The increase in foreign dependence on oil is not treated at all by BP's temporary relief. d. The article on the fear of card check said, "Unsurprisingly, business advocacy groups oppose it - the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the American Small Business League, ..." Con erroneously claimed that there was no expression of widespread opposition to card check. Con claims that costs of doubled salaries can be passed on to consumers. Con did not counter the reasons I gave why that is not true. If labor costs were truly of no consequence, then any country could set a minimum wage of $100 an hour and end poverty. That obviously doesn't work. 4. Most small business are Type S corporations, filing as individuals. Half the proposed tax increases would come from small business. It hasn't passed yet, but it is announced policy that has given business another reason to doubt their future. 5. I gave five ways in which the Administration could restore the confidence of business in the future of the economy. If business had confidence in the future, they would invest. Consumers would gain confidence from the improved business environment. They would believe they could stay employed. consumers could also stop worrying about skyrocketing health care costs, energy costs, and taxes. Con did not refute those claim. Obama botched the recovery. The resolution is affirmed. |
42 | 3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | fighting should be banned from the NHL do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck! |
23 | df37aacb-2019-04-18T18:23:08Z-00005-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | euthanasia and assisted suicide I accept and wil debate the benefits of euthanasia.#1Euthanasia gives people a choice to die. If they are in severe pain they should be able to have the choice of living and death, and when they have no hope left, it would be unnecessary to let them live if they don't want to. Also death is a private matter and no harm to others. If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient. Also the doctors are paid to satisfy the needs of the patient and if a patient wants to die with dignity then it's a doctors duty to do so. When a pet is ill we put it to sleep as well as an act of mercy and compassion. Why not with humans?#2Keeping a person alive costs a lot of money and putting the patient to sleep would spare money to aid other persons. I would like to point out this should not be the primary reason for euthanasia but it is certainly a benefit.#3I see you're a christian so you would oppose euthanasia because god gave life to every person and life is sacred. This is debatable but not the point of this debate. Going by this logic if God wanted a person to die, the doctors should not bother trying to save him since it's His choice. |
11 | 4bc9f164-2019-04-18T17:44:16Z-00000-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks My opponent forfeited one round. He appeared in the final round and provided the same assertions he did in his opening round. He provided us with no evidence to convince us of his claims. He simply admitted that his case is personnel decisions and not one single documented fact supports it. I do not need to provide any argument because my opponent failed to show us one thing but that he is biased. It is not my burden to show proof. It is my opponents burden to provide proof and he has not shown none. By rules of debate demands that my opponent loses this debate. |
19 | 3fdbc7fb-2019-04-18T18:13:43Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US My opponent has, for one or another reason, disappointingly and unfortunately forfeited her second round. If I had known that she would just forfeit, I wouldn't have challenged her to this debate in the first place. Anyway, I extend my arguments and hope that she comes back and engages in what is left of this debate.Now, since Con forfeited her second round, I would like to use this round to refute two common arguments made by gay-marriage proponents. These two arguments comes from the idea of "rights" and are used many times to support the belief that gay-marriage should be legal in the US. However, as we will now see, both of these arguments are failures. 1) Marriage is a fundamental human rightThis argument is merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Moreover, proponents of this argument must also answer and justify how gay-marriage is fundamental human right, and why gay-marriage is a fundamental human right.I agree that marriage is a fundamental human right, but I however strongly disagree that gay-marriage is a fundamental human right. Why? Because it goes against what the term "marriage" really means and really is. You cannot argue that gay-marriage is a fundamental "human right", unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that gay-marriage is a fundamental "human right". Maybe heterosexual marriages is but not gay-marriages, because gay-marriages goes against what marriage actually is and why it is at all recognized legally by the state. The goal of marriage is the continuation of the society (procreation). Only heterosexual marriages fulfil this goal. Gay-marriages do not.2) Not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their rightsAccording to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their "rights". First, this argument is also merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Again, you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because not legalizing it deprives homosexuals of their "rights", unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their "rights". Just like it can't, for example, be said that not allowing me to become the president of the United States deprives my "rights". To say that would be illogical since I don't qualify as the president of the United States to begin with. Thus, no "rights" are being deprived from me by not allowing me to become the president of the United States.Secondly, proponents of this argument must also successfully answer: 1) How gay-marriage is a "right".2) Why gay-marriage is a "right".3) And why gays should be given this "right" to marry each other in the first place.If these three questions isn't successfully answered, then what rights is the homosexuals deprived of? You can't say that someone is deprived of their rights when those rights doesn't even exist. So proponents of this argument must first prove that such a "right" even exist.This argument is simply just assuming that gay-marriage is a "right" of the homosexuals without first proving that such a "right" even exist. Moreover, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Thus, there is no discrimination against gays and no rights are being deprived from them, because "gay-marriage" doesn't exist and because the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with. In order to claim that gays are deprived of their "rights" by not allowing them to marry, you have to first change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship between two males too. However, what are the state's interests in recognizing and legalizing a relationship such as a "two males relationship" as marriage to begin with? What does the society as a whole benefit from doing that? Very little. And again, marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. This is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage, because it recognises that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society.It is now Con's job to prove that this view of marriage is wrong in order to successfully change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship between two males too, because according to my view of marriage (which is called the "Conjugal view" or the "Traditional view" of marriage) gay relationships cannot qualify as real marriages to begin with. Thus, to say that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their "rights", is absurd and invalid. Well, until Con have refuted the "Conjugal view" or the "Traditional view" of marriage and given us a rational reason as to why we should believe in another view of marriage, and why the US should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing marriages in accordance to that view. We have already seen that the revisionist view of marriage is illogical, invalid, and cannot in any way be better or more rational than the "Conjugal view" or the "Traditional view" of marriage. And nor can the revisionist view of marriage be considered a good reason as to why the US at all should have an interest in recognising and legalizing gay-marriage.ConclusionAll my arguments stands completely unrefuted and Con have not given even one reason/argument as to why gay-marriage should be legal in the US.The resolution remains affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US |
20 | 2cf34093-2019-04-18T11:47:00Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate is healthy Do you have any evidence for these claims?I believe that you might have the burden of proof. |
29 | 2cf2c469-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00017-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants. Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America. Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens. Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous[1]. There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens. Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual's identity. If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants' quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American's driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals. [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html |
38 | d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00008-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects. |
44 | 5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas The U.S. government favors Christianity over all other religions by recognizing Christmas, a Christian festival, and by mandating a federal holiday on Christmas Day. It does not recognize any other religious holiday in the same way. By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true. Con said: "The Federal Government does not force it's [sic] employees to "celebrate this religious festival". The paid holiday period can…be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion." Thank goodness! Imagine a state of affairs where citizens were actually driven into churches and forced to pray! You're right, Heineken. That would be much, much worse. It's bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow. Con said: "not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays… All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty." I'm sure you're right, Heineken, that they don't stand down the entire military for Christmas, or indeed for any federal holiday. I suppose they keep the essential services running. I don't really see how that affects the argument, though. Con said: "Pro must show that…mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee." You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen's feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. I disagree entirely, and for many reasons that are well outside the scope of this debate. I will only say here that this debate is not about people's emotions. It is about whether the US government should stop imposing religious observance onto its citizens in the form of the Christmas Day holiday. And yes, it should stop. ------------------ Con said: "The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in [sic] 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay." This is my favorite of all your arguments, because of the large sums of money involved and because of its ambiguity. What point are you trying to make here? If only there were an extra round, I could ask. As it is, I will take a few guesses at what your argument might be, and rebut them in turn. 1. Christmas day pays for itself. Non-Christians don't have to subsidize it. Actually, according to your own sources, "holiday sales" mean all sales in November and December and "Holidays during this period include Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa." http://www.nrf.com...... In fact, there is no information here about how much money in taxes Christmas contributes specifically. In any case, the government encourages non-Christians to give gifts, send cards and put up Christmas trees. To contribute taxes, in other words. So whether it's though sales or income tax, non-Christians are subsidizing this religious festival. 2. We're so gloriously rich here in America, what difference does half a billion dollars make? Half a billion dollars is still a substantial amount of money. And it's the principle of the thing. Citizens can't choose whether or not to subsidize Christmas Day. The government makes them. 3. Christmas Day makes money for the government. Therefore, the government is right to encourage it. As you convincingly argued elsewhere, Christians aren't alone in having gift-giving festivals. The government doesn't need to mandate a federal holiday to rake in the benefits of religion. In any case, this is a distressingly cynical line to take. Surely religious freedom and equality are worth more than a seasonal rise in retail sales? ------------------ Con said: "The Jewish Holiday of Purim…Hanukkah…Eids…Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities." So true. So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can't Christmas be like that too? Con said: "The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact… 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday." I'm sure you're right, Heineken. Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. ------------------ Con said: " I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation…This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists." I'm sorry. I did put the US government link in, but you had to find it on the list of links at the bottom, click on it, then scroll down to find the right bit. I should have just put in the quote directly. Here it is. "Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans." http://www.usa.gov... What's a "straw man argument"? It sounds bad, almost as if you're accusing me of making things up. But I've included sources all along. Con said: "It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance." Ah. So that's the difference between a "national holiday" and a "federal holiday". Thanks. That's really interesting. Conclusion There are eleven federal holidays in the US. Only one of these, Christmas Day, is a religious festival. The government has no business showing such respect and preference to Christianity. The US prides itself on being a country of religious freedom. Federal holidays, which are compulsory holidays for all federal employees (in non-essential services), and which are subsidized by US tax-payers, should be secular and inclusive. Christmas Day should be celebrated by Christians in a private manner, just as people of other beliefs celebrate their own festivals. |
31 | a9c90ce7-2019-04-18T16:49:17Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | During "Out-of-Body" Experiences, People's Consciousness Don't Leaves Their Bodies This is also my first debate on this site. Let me make it clear that no semantics are allowed. I do not see what is wrong with the definition of consciousness I provided. My opponent should not try to change the definitions. Especially not when his definition assumes the question at hand. Con: "I believe that Pro should have to show that the consciousness leaves the body" No, I will argue that it is more plausible that the consciousness does not leave the body then that the consciousness indeed leaves the body. This being said let's move on to the debate. In my opening I will lay out 3 arguments: Argument 1: There is no good evidence for that the consciousness leaves the body during an Out of Body experience (OBE). Argument 2: There is good evidence for a naturalistic explanation. Argument 3: Dualism is false. A1-1: Anecdotal evidence There are many stories known of people who reported an OBE, they are indeed surprisingly common. It is known that people who report OBEs are also prone to fantasize during the day, report hallucinations and perceptual distortions [1]. One objection is that the evidence is anecdotal in nature. Moreover, it turns out that similar findings are a lot less impressive after thorough investigation. The hypothesis that the conscious leaves the body during the OBE is actually easily tested, by testing if one can observe something at a remote location during the OBE. Yet, the results turn out to be almost always inaccurate. When the OBE is researched in highly systematic controlled experiments, results seem to be always negative. A1-2: Not scientific There are some known cases in which a positive finding was reported. However, one of the main principles of the scientific method is replication. This requirement is not met. At best, the results could be described as good guesses in the rare instances that they have been accurate [2]. So if the consciousness does not actually leave the body during the OBE, what best explains the experience? A2-1: Lucid dreams theory Levitan en LaBerge found a relationship between lucid dreams and the OBE [3]. They theorized that the OBE is a projection of the mind and is formed when awake during REM sleep. Although the body is inactive during this period, the consciousness is in that period active. The brain fills in the absence of sensory information by fantasy and because the consciousness is in alert state, these experiences seem evocative. And indeed a correlation of 0.20 is found between having lucid dreams and OBEs [1]. A2-2: The lack of oxygen theory When the brains do not get enough oxygen, this can lead to disinhibition by which the brain activity does increase and may cause hallucination [4]. Furthermore, if the angular gyrus, an area on the border where the temporal lobe and parietal lobe meet and which is also very sensitive to oxygen deficiency, is being stimulated, OBEs can be generated [5]. A2-3: Hallucination theory Olaf Blanke found that through electrical stimulation of the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) the area where the temporal lobe and parietal lobe meet, OBEs can be generated. Participants in one study reported the feeling of escaping their own bodies and watch them from a position outside their bodies, when this area in the brains is stimulated electrically. Moreover, research shows that people with epilepsy who regularly report OBEs often have injuries to the TPJ [5]. It appears that the TPJ is crucial for the body and self- perception. This brain structure is the center of visual information and information related to positional equilibrium and self-perception. Conflict arises when the brain wrongly integrates the information and comes to conclude that the body is standing at two different locations, which may lead to the illusion to see oneself [6]. A3-1: Biological development For the consciousness to be able to leave the body it has to be immaterial. But because we are evolved out of material matter, ever since no immaterial substance is known to be added. A3-2: Physical dependence of consciousness Certain injures to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental state at all. Also brain states and mental states are highly correlated. Nothing mental happens without something physical happens. This strongly implies that consciousness cannot exist independently of the physical brain. A3-3: Parsimony As we have seen, an explanation of the OBE does not require the postulation of an additional entity. Thus, when it is not necessary to assume an extra term, the simplest hypothesis is preferred. Conclusion My opponent has to show that not only it is possible that the consciousness is able to leave the restriction of the physical body and can operate without the brain, but that it is furthermore more plausible than the theories I have suggested. [Sources can be found in the comment section] |
1 | 1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed CON falsely claims that I have not shown that collective bargaining are responsible for education inefficiency. I have shown multiple reasons why collective bargaining is inefficient. It is mathematically proven to be inefficient based on the theory of monopolies. It is also responsible for inefficiency by blocking education reform. CON states that school districts cannot raise taxes. However teacher unions finance politicians in exchange the politician raises taxes, which would allow increasing the budget. AFT has donated millions of dollars in campaign contributions. However, teacher unions do increase the size of the school budget. CON even states that the biggest expense is labor. Yet teacher unions are directly responsible for the high cost of labor since collective bargaining raises that cost. As I already showed, teachers are paid more than psychologists, and public teachers receive much higher salaries then private nonunionized teachers. CON states that removing collective bargaining rights will create bad teachers since they will get paid less. First, If a teacher cannot be fired, then the teacher will have less of a financial incentive to teach well. Second, If falling salaries create poor teachers, then the school district will increase teacher salary. No unions required. Privatized schools do better than public schools, yet pay teachers less and do not unionize teachers. CON dismisses the difference between public and private sector bargaining, but does not give an explanation why even though I showed why public sector bargaining is quite different and more dangerous to economic liberty than private sector bargaining. Rejecting an argument arbitrary is not a form of argumentation. CON states unions are responsible for many government worker regulations, yet there is no proof that either unions are responsible or that the regulations are good. OSHA safety regulation has done nothing to increase safety, and the rate of reduction in workplace fatalities has not decreased due to OSHA [1]. Mandating a 40-hour work week is also pointless. People choose work based on how much he or she is willing to work. Hence, this is why part-time jobs exists. The market works so that workers salaries and working conditions improve as capital resources and technology improves, and no unions or government intervention is needed. Henry Ford decided to pay his workers a higher salary, give them less hours of work, and created a sociological department to improve workers lives. Henry Ford did not do this out of generosity, because he wanted healthy workers and less turnovers. He was actually quite anti-union as well. CON's only rebuttal to education being a public service is that 'It is what it is' and even confirms that teacher unions are responsible. What he is rebutting is wrong, since I favor school choice. School choice is what makes US universities the best in the world. CON argues against a program proven to work that the teacher union blocks. CON states that tenure and dismissal is set through the states and should be part of the debate. This is wrong. His own source shows that teacher unions play a part in tenure. "The following are some of the matters that are often the subject of this bargaining: Tenure"[2] Also: When school attendant, Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntarily two-tier track to either have teachers have tenure or give teachers the potential to earn as much as $140,00 per year, the teacher union needed to vote on the proposal. Why are they voting if they have no say? [3] Introduction: CON is using ad homeinum attacks to discredit me. He says that the status quo is not being challenged for the right reasons. I just provided arguments and reasons in this debate to explain the problem. And somehow I should be discredit since I have a financial incentive, yet somehow teachers do not have a financial incentive to keep the status quo. Really? Also CON accuses me of not being an expert and should listen to the teachers, yet what about the school attendances that try to push education reform yet fail? Isn't the school attendant the expert in education? Why aren't the teacher unions listening to them? What about the teacher in the video I showed that spoke out against the teacher unions? Con is trying to discredit me without providing any arguments. This is a foul debate tactic. Protection: CON states that this is a clear turn, without actually citing why it should be a turn. Does he want teachers that commit sexual misconduct, abusiveness, and do not follow the curriculum? Extend arguments that teachers do not need to be protected due to internal system that protect teachers. CON keeps on going on the fact that teachers are at the mercy of the students. This is like stating that doctors are at the mercy of their patient. Everyone realizes that a patient dying from terminal cancer is different from a patient dying from a broken arm. Everyone knows that teaching students that are not educated to begin with is difficult. I already explained that teacher performance can be evaluated by measuring the performance of students before and after the school year. CON then tries to attack my claims, stating that I'm not a teacher. So what? Does he seriously believe that somehow private teachers and lawyers attract much more bad performers then public teachers, and that's why the teacher firing rate is so low? Give me a break. I was a high school student a few years back with good grades. There were some really bad teachers out there. Past Practice Resolution: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removedImplementation: Create a law that removes the collective bargaining rights of teachers There, refuted. Other Legal Issues Create a law that removes collective bargaining rights of state employees. There, refuted. As explained earlier, state budgets can easily be increased through taxation obtained through coercion. The product in the public sector does not need to be demanded unlike products in the private sector. If you have a relentless private union who refuses to compromise, the company goes bankrupt. If you have a relentless public union who refuses to compromise, the government raises taxes or increases the debt. Teacher unions and other public unions pay off politicians to raise taxes or increase the debt in order to finance their budgets. Specialization CON states that it is not the job of the union to create jobs. So this argument is nonsense, since a teacher is still taking a huge risk since a job cannot be guaranteed. In fact, based on my previous analysis, unions make the risks greater. The AMA and bar association are quite different from AFT since lawyers and medical professions lose their license much more frequently then teachers, do not contribute any campaign money to politicians, and are used to improve the profession. Go on to the AMA and bar association and you'll find published peer reviewed journals, ways to improve oneself professionally. Go on AFT and you'll find almost none of that. CON uses the excuse for lawyers and doctors that many of them work individually. Note that many doctors work at hospitals, and many lawyers work at law firms and corporations, yet are not unionized. Also note that a teacher can work independently as a tutor. CON still not explain why teachers should be "protected" due to financial risks, but not others. Conclusion: CON fails to defend his arguments and instead uses ad homenium attacks and appeal to (false) athority arguments isntead of actually takig on my arguments. I look forward to the final round. . http://www.coyoteblog.com...[1] . http://www.enotes.com...[2] . http://teachersunionexposed.com...[3] |
15 | a56a8385-2019-04-18T16:19:49Z-00004-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Medical Research Using Live Animals Using live animals for research purposes serve a purpose. Using animals to research help create cures and treatments for diseases (procon.org). Using animals for research is the best option because they simulate animals as close as possible. Not only that, but using live animals for research purposes helps science advance. A lot of the biggest scientific discoveries were made with the assistance of live animals as test subjects (procon.org). Also, using animals as live test subjects has saved lives (procon.org). Most drugs have been tested for safety by using animals. This proves that using animals as live test subjects is alright because it serves a purpose |
5 | 2931ade0-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00004-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Post Office Should Be Privatized The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public |
20 | ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00001-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, "milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash)." Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com) |
27 | e0c0b3ea-2019-04-18T12:57:20Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun control Thank you for debating firstly. Secondly, background checks have nothing to do with gun control. Licensing does. That's what gun control is. Making it incredibly difficult to attain a gun. Background checks are easy. What I am against is the extraction of any type of gun from the public. As you can see by statistics, it does not have any effect on the gun violence, violent crime, and homicide rates. Let me provide that for you. UK: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing. Scotland is basically the same stat except after the gun ban the crime shot up exponentially and has stayed. To give you some more country's, Mexico, Cuba, Japan, England, France, Scotland, and Ireland are all great examples in which gun control has not worked or has not affected anything, at all. Now let me give you examples within the U.S. First of all, California has many of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet those laws did absolutely nothing to stop the San Bernardino shooting. It is also recorded in Chicago, that a person is shot every 2.8 hours despite the intense gun restriction. As well as Washington D.C., which has a similar stat. |
24 | cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation Calling me a liar isuncalled for and I demand an immediate apology, and I think that name calling is needed in a debate. Sorry imabench it is comon edikite. Also please quote msaying all jos come from big companys, because I said small companys make the jobs and proved that a flat tax would help them. "Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place."Link? Scource? Please prove your point before making assumptions. 1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money. My dad doesnt own a company, he's a doctor. So his office is a small buissness. He faors a flat tax because he says: "A flt tax would lower tases, and I want to hire more people, and even if I have mor emoney and have enough workers, I will inveest in stocks ich will also stimulate the economy" So right there 2 ways that help his profit and stimulate the economy, and what is a dinus. I can't refite a work that looks like a probalble insult I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 planWell your plan has the numbers because you are using the current plan, so I need that on my side to hae a similar argument quality as yours, so that being said, the 999 plan is bad how? I think simplicity is the key, your plan has 80,000 me pages right? That sounds simple, not. A flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they ownWrong the burden is on evryone, and still you need to prove thata progressive tax is better, and you still havent proven how yours is benificial for making jobs, so before reticuling me you still need to prove the ecoomic benifits. And my points still stand, more jobs = everyone richer. Lessining the amount of poor. but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivityWrong! rich people want to get richer so they will eand, if you want to prove this give me a reliable scource, then we can cubut. A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.... nothing garentees jobs, but I have providd more proof then you on this topic, so please give me a credile scource on this topic. A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt. A flat tax does not create jobs,Still need scources that are written by educated politicians or economists, like mine. Forbe ran for predident in 2000. ANd the other scources are experts in the feild, and the reascources for those sites are credibal also. A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor, Nope ot shares the burde, and since my flat tax makes more jobs then there will be less poor. A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would......Great that means less spending onuseless things, and they will only spend on vital tings sx: roads, bridges, armed force, etc. There are still even more benifits to a flat tax. It is mor esimpleor fines hidden behind 80,000 pages of legislation, a flat tax is easy to comprehend, so the only way to break it's laws is to not pay the small tax. One tax system that's easier to comply with would be a flat tax system that features one low rate and many fewer deductions and credits. Why doesn't Congress adopt such a system? Probably because that would mean abandoning the idea of using the tax code to advance social agendas, and politicians like the idea of trying to change people's behaviors. (1)Compared to traditional tax systems, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households get only one exemption -a generous allowance based on family size - and then pay a low rate on any income above that amount. (2)How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts (how much revenue came in) and then subtract their costs (salaries, cost of raw materials, and expenses for new tools and machinery). (2)There are two principal arguments for a flat tax- growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because current tax systems, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduce growth, destroy jobs and lower income. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax bias against saving and investment, it would boost an economy's performance. (2)If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits, including: Faster economic growth. A flat tax would spur increased work, saving and investment. By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy's long-term growth rate. Instant wealth creation. All income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate. Simplicity. Complexity is a hidden tax that requires record-keeping, form preparation, lawyers, accountants and other resources to comply with the current system. Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. (2)http://www.youtube.com...http://blog.heritage.org... (1)http://www.heritage.org... (2) |
28 | 181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal. Thanks for the debate. Introduction: Prostitution should not be legal for various reasons. My opponent and I still have to go through 4 rounds of debate. I will not lay out my entire argument in the first round of debate, as I am sure most of it will get lost along the way. "The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years (M.H. Silbert and A.M. Pines, 1982, "Victimization of street prostitutes, Victimology: An International Journal, 7: 122-133) or 14 years (D.Kelly Weisberg, 1985, Children of the Night: A Study of Adolescent Prostitution, Lexington, Mass, Toronto). Most of these 13 or 14 year old girls were recruited or coerced into prostitution. Others were "traditional wives" without job skills who escaped from or were abandoned by abusive husbands and went into prostitution to support themselves and their children. (Denise Gamache and Evelina Giobbe, Prostitution: Oppression Disguised as Liberation, National Coalition against Domestic Violence, 1990)" [1] 1. Take this source as my first reason prostitution should not be legalized. I am fully aware that you believe sexual intercourse with an underage person should not be allowed. If we use some deductive reasoning, how many teenagers smoke before they are the age of 18 (the legal age to smoke). What about alcohol? If prostitution is legalized, it is highly likely that underage females from very low income areas will try to capitalize on an opportunity to make some money. It is very possible that they would lie about their age and begin a career in prostitution. I feel that this source is a good place to start the debate. Rebuttal to my opponents argument points: "Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings." -People already have the right to do this. No issue needs to be addressed there. "Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such" -Health risks are a small part of the issues associated with prostitution. I prefer to look into the dramatic increase in physical abuse and sexual assaults that would create a much larger burden on law enforcement agencies across the United States. I will jump into those statistics in later arguments. Further, we will also talk about the high rate of victims of child molestation jumping into prostitution. We will also talk about how many drug addicts (meth, crack, heroin), quickly lose money and revert to prostitution as a means to finance another criminal offense. "Other arguments attempt to define prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal" -Prostitution is very demeaning to women and is also immoral. However, I will address other issues associated with Prostitution. "That argument is like saying that if someone doesn't like a movie because he/she thinks it demeaning, then he/she can make it illegal to see that movie based on subjective value judgement" -First, this is not the greatest comparison in the world. Watching movies is absolutely nothing like prostitution. I will give my examples in upcoming arguments. "You should not enforce subjective morality onto others" -Are you suggesting we legalize all criminal behavior? My arguments will focus on the prostitutes as victims. When you encourage prostitution, a large percentage of females that will start prostitution will start at a very young age as my source identified earlier. How many people start smoking in their thirties? "Very little data about smoking is regularly collected for kids under 12, but the peak years for first trying to smoke appear to be in the sixth and seventh grades, or between the ages of 11 and 13, with a considerable number starting even earlier. In 2011, 6.1 percent of eighth grade students reported having had their first cigarette by fifth grade (ages 10"11), and 15.5 percent had tried smoking by eighth grade. More than half of twelfth graders who were current smokers had tried smoking by the end of ninth grade." [2] -As you can see in the source I provided, a large number of kids start smoking between the ages of 11 and 13. However the legal age to smoke tobacco is the age of 18. Prostitution carries a very similar path, and if we allow mere children to partake in prostitution so they can make money, we will fail young girls all across the United States. I await your response. [1] http://www.rapeis.org... [2] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... |
27 | f99364f4-2019-04-18T13:41:53Z-00004-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | 3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban Thanks, Pro!OVERVIEWA. Pro should defend a single, consistent position. Pro has offered a plan and should not make retroactive additions or modifications to it because any changes would involve shifting the goalposts. Any criticism I make could be countered by Pro saying, "oh, well, I am just going to change my plan so that your attacks don't apply." This is not only unfair because it shifts ground, but it creates a time skew in that I am forced to spend more time detailing my positions and responding to the shifting ground than Pro is forced to spend actually shifting the ground. Plus, if Pro makes modifications, I may not have the opportunity to make non-new arguments against them, putting me in a catch-22 situation in terms of wanting to win and wanting to not violate common standards of debate ethics. B. The word "ban" implies confiscation. If you "legally prohibit" the "private ownership of firearms" you are saying that it is illegal to merely own a gun. Thus, anyone owning a gun would either have to surrender their gun or have their gun confiscated. This is a form of theft. Theft is, a priori, immoral, and a clear violation of our property rights, and perhaps also other rights like privacy, freedom, recreation, etc. Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft.THE PLANPro's plan will not change the deeply rooted gun culture present in the US--it will take far more than 20 years to change that. His plan will also, because of its prolonged nature, (1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance, and (3) be harder to implement because of the risk of changing administrations and rising opposition. FRAMEWORKMeta-EthicsPro writes: "since it is possible that X is objectively wrong then we ought to consider it as objectively wrong so as not to violate morality and moral principles." This conclusion is absurd on its face. Any action has some non-zero probability that it is wrong, ergo, it is always possible that any action is objectively wrong. If it is possible that any action is wrong, and if we ought to consider any action that is possibly wrong as wrong so as to not violate morality, then we must consider ALL actions as morally wrong. This is contradictory, absurd, and illogical, and would put us in a double-bind, since both of our positions are potentially wrong. For this reason, we can reject Pro's meta-ethical "proof." If Pro cannot warrant his meta-ethical system, then he cannot similarly warrant his normative ethical system, since this presupposes moral realism.Normative EthicsA. Pro provides literally zero reason why individual's opinions should matter in society. A hyper-collectivist moral view might disagree, and so Pro cannot simply take it as axiomatic that this is the case. Moreover, even if such opinions mattered, it is a non-sequitur to say that this proves individualism. Certainly, collectivists can acknowledge the importance of the individual while still asserting the primacy of the collective. Pro, in P1 alone, thus commits bare assertion and non-sequitur fallacies. B. Turn: Individualism supports the Con position. "The gist of individualism is, then, that everyone must consent to being used by another. This is because each is important, valuable in his or her own right. And if an individual is important as such, then there is a sphere that constitutes the individual's realm of sovereignty and others ought to respect it...That is exactly why the right to private property is vital. When effectively protected, it secures for human individuals a sphere of personal jurisdiction, the right to acquire and hold the props, as it where, with which to order one's life." [1] Property also offers an essential tool for individuals to pursue their purposes (self-actualization). Thus, individualism supports property rights, and, as, I explained in OVB, Pro violates property rights.C. Pro's weighing calculus is saving lives. If he can't show he saves lives with his plan, he cannot link. PRO's CASEMurder RateA. Pro is committing a correlation/causation fallacy. Just because the bottom 3 countries have fewer guns does not mean that this is the cause of their low gun homicide rate. Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Australia, Greece, and New Zealand all are among the top 30 gun owning countries in the world, [2] but are in the bottom 19 of Pro's chart. Iceland has virtually no gun homicide rate at all. Israel also has a large number of guns in homes due to military service. And, if you look at homicides per capita [12] versus gun ownership per capita [13] there appears to not even be a correlation--countries like Nigeria, DRC, Brazil, and Russia have few guns, yet many murders, while the opposite is true for Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Germany. There are three possible takeaways: (1) culture, not gun ownership, causes the correlation (confounding variable), (2) other gun-owning countries have better regulations or training regimes (we can solve the problem by implementing better regulation instead of a ban), and/or (3) there is just no correlation at all, and Pro's chart cherry-picks what nations it looks at.B. The UK is not a good comparison to the US: (1) the UK is an island, making it harder for smugglers to bring illegal guns to the UK market; the US has, on the other hand, extremely porous land boarders that are hard to police; (2) the UK doesn't have the US gun culture; guns in the UK were mostly used for sport and hunting, and it never developed the kind of frontiersman/Revolutionary culture that the US did, where guns were closely connected to personal liberty.C. Banning guns will increase gang violence. Banning products creates black markets for them. Supply and demand indicates that, when demand remains, consumers, particularly in gun-loving societies, will seek other sources of the product. For instance, prohibition in America spurred the growth of gangs (like Al Capone's) which would supply alcohol illegally. "Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned [in France], but that hasn't...stopped them in increasing numbers...The numbers of illegal weapons in France have increased by double digits for years." [3] "[G]ang members are increasingly engaging in...weapons trafficking...Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities." [4] This has two impacts: (a) a gun ban will not necessarily be effective at reducing the number of guns in circulation, and (b) a gun ban will provide a new source of revenue for gangs, especially as more people seek illegal sources of guns because they cannot get them legally. D. Banning guns will increase right-wing violence. Militia groups in the U.S. grew 37% in 2014, and grew significantly also between 2008 and 2011. [5] "That growth is likely to continue as the groups recruit more members with a pro-gun message...[A] gun control movement...is intensifying anti-government rage and will lead to more growth for the groups.' The Bundy Ranch and Oregon Wildlife Reserve examples show that these groups are able to mobilize resources and manpower to contest government authority. Right-wing extremists have actually killed more people since 9/11 than terrorists motivated by al-Qaeda's ideology. [7] The groups are very well armed, and have "the capacity for a terrorist attack...to be as deadly as any foreign jihadist attack." [8] The impact of this is clear: banning guns creates a political optic that will fuel dangerous, right-wing extremists.E. Guns are key to self-defense. "[V]ictims are hospitalized with an 85% recovery rate; but criminals shot by victims face a 'Hobson's choice': hospitalization with imprisonment or eschewing medical care at the risk of death. A criminological study found that for those attacked by criminals 'resistance with a gun appears to be the most effective [response]'...The same study also noted that 'the use of a gun by the victim significantly reduces her chance of being injured.' A U.S. National Crime Victimization study concluded that defending against felons with a gun helps victims 65% of the time and make things worse only in about 9% of the time." [9] This has two impacts: (a) gun bans reduce the deterrent effect of gun ownership on crime by removing the threat of the Hobson's choice, and (b) gun bans remove an effective tool of self-defense from the toolkit.F. Gun bans will be disproportionately enforced in minority communities. "Last year, 47.3 percent of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black--a racial disparity larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes." [14] This will intensify the cycle of oppression in communities of color.G. Many won't comply with a ban, forcing the USFG to arrest citizens and pay (likely hefty sums) for the operation. AccidentsA. Safety features solve. "Federal law imposes no design safety standards on domestically produced firearms. As a result, many firearms are manufactured and sold in the U.S. without undergoing appropriate safety testing and without including basic safety features." [10] "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms." [11]B. Accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue, and my other impacts (gangs, right-wing violence, etc.) outweigh.SOURCES1 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...10 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...14 - http://tinyurl.com... |
48 | d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lower the Voting Age "I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher."If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative," 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's."Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. "in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers' political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers' political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers' identification." -http://www.asanet.org..."They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that."Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference."Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. " Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude. |
21 | 62c89a27-2019-04-18T18:12:27Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | The world should focus on climate change than on global economy! Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of all i would like to define the word climate change.climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.it may be a change in average weather conditions or in the distribution of weather around avarege conditions.my main point on this issue is that climate change comes before the global economy so the world should focus on climate change.because if we do not focus on climate change it means that our land will be affected.e.g what if we have things such as global warming?that will be a case of one country but the world as whole will be affected.i would like to give you a very good axample by one country.let it be Zimbabwe.if there is global warming in Zimbabwe that means Zimbabwe can not produce the products it was manufacturing before because we manufacture products from raw materials.the country will have to depend on the other countries.that means there is no state income for that country.that is a process ,the economy that you were focusing on it start to decline.that will force you to go back and come with ways of ending global warming.because the economy of a country is sustained by the primary sector.how can you plant your seeds without the ground?and now where is people those are living in that country?is poverty not there?some firms will be closed up and people will be unemployed |
42 | 7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for "big hits" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the "right way" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey. |
26 | b8329ce7-2019-04-18T13:59:38Z-00005-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | That test scores a good indication of a student's competency Dear ladies and gentlemen, test scores is not the better indicator to assess a student. To begin the debate, I'll firstly define the words."test" means that for anyway of discovering, by questions or practical activities, what someone knows, or what someone or something can do or is like."Indication" means a sign for something that's true.Test scores are not the better indicator to assess a student. I'll explain that test is harmful to students in its own, but still do not reflect the student's work in this post, and give some examples not using test scores to assess a student in the second post. I'll conclude the debate in the third post.Test scores do not reflect how a student performs. According to Fairtest, the problem of multiple choice test is "students do superficial question, which rewards students for a quick answer, but do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field. It also encourages a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as grade retention and tracking"(Fairtest). Also, essay type question rewards students with a higher level of writing skill over the ones do not, thus test cannot actually reflect a student's performance. Also, these scores can be easily altered, according to USA TODAY research, a Washington school is being scrutinised because of the allegations that the school altered the answers to the test. This is also a problem that shows tests scores do not represent how students performs. Tests is making the study scope smaller.According to Patrick Ledesma, these tests are making the teacher "narrows the curriculum", and "fails to measure higher level thinking such as creativity"(Patrick Ledesma). This is also a side-effect of tests, making the ones who just remember the whole curriculum but is not creative wins the tests.We have some alternative to tests.We can have some series of quizzes instead of a high-stake test, and presentation can also be the alternative to tests. Dear opponent, if you cannot explain that tests is a better indication than the alternatives listed above, then this motion must fall.Test scores are not the better indicator to assess a student.This motion must fall.Thank You!http://fairtest.org...;http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...http://blogs.edweek.org...; |
37 | b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans (OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :) |
38 | d4181057-2019-04-18T18:59:23Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Why Marijuana should be legalized "I completely disagree with the laws that hold marijuana, in society, to be illegal. To claim that a plant without a portion of the consequences that alcohol or tobacco brings is to be deemed illegal is utterly foolish. With that, Marijuana should be legalized" I completely disagree with what my opponent is saying, and marijuana has effects like alcohal, driving under the infulence isn't just alcohal. Pot as it is refered to is harmful to human beings as these effects : Brain effects The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement. When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms: Hallucinations,Delusions,Impaired memory and Disorientation. Effects on the Heart Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time. Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking. Effects on the Lungs Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: Daily cough and phlegm production More frequent acute chest illnesses Increased risk of lung infections Obstructed airways Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. What About Cancer? Although one study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers, that study could not be confirmed by further analysis. Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk. Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size. For example, the participants in those studies may have been too young to have developed lung cancer yet. Even though researchers have yet to "prove" a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk. Other Health Effects Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors. Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause: Even if drinking and smoking is almost as bad doesn't make it right to do, in my strong opinion smoking should be illegal and drinking more regulated than it already is. |
29 | cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The benefits of illegal immigration do not outweigh the negatives. First of all, illegal immigrant labor will depress American wages and keep the unemployed or underemployed out of the job market (Dann). Even with wage laws negotiated by unions, granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will simply make it more difficult for American citizens to find work and support their families. Proponents of amnesty argue that illegals take care of the dirty manual labor that "Americans wouldn't do," but this absurd assumption is false. There is no job that would not be filled by American citizens if all the illegals in this country disappeared (Hawkins). Even if the "jobs Americans wouldn't do" statement were true, unskilled workers eventually become a burden on society. When they become too old to perform the hard menial labor for which they were hired, the cost of taking care of them will greatly exceed what we pay in taxes (Hawkins). Greedy business owners want to maximize their profits and minimize spending. Therefore, they hire illegal immigrants over American citizens because they do not have to pay them what the job is worth. These employers exploit the tide of illegal immigration selfishly, and increase the hardships of already struggling Americans. Also, awarding amnesty will cause rampant identity fraud and a new surge of illegal immigration. In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants that had entered the country before 1982. The law promised to tighten subsequent immigration policies and penalize employers who hired illegals over citizens. However, it merely welcomed another wave of illegal immigration as well as widespread document fraud. As a result, today there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country (Dann). If amnesty were granted again, it would invite even more aliens to enter this country illegally and be allowed to stay without repercussions. In conclusion, United States citizenship is a precious thing that should not be dealt out to just anybody, especially those whose first accomplishment within our borders was to break our laws. If we reward any and all illegal aliens with amnesty, we are compromising the value of American citizenship and the dignity of the country. Works Cited Dann, Carrie. "Humanity? Practicality? Amnesty? The arguments for and against immigration reform. " NBC News. 12 April 2013. Web. 27 October 2013. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.... Hawkins, John. "5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn"t Be Given American Citizenship." N.p. 23 February 2010. Web. 27 October 2013. http://www.rightwingnews.com.... |
37 | b9d81214-2019-04-18T12:15:10Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | children should have a cell phone Judging from your Round 1 answer, I'd say you want to just jump right into this debate. I wish you had introduced it a little better and clarified the term smartphone (which is very different than a cell phone). I'm guessing you meant smart phone from what you wrote. A smartphone, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded applications." Another suggestion I have is that I would not have called the last part of your introduction a conclusion, since it is your thesis (but that is besides the point). I will argue why kids should not have smartphones. I am definitely in favor of kids having cell phones like the old fashioned kind over smartphones. I oppose, to this day, the idea of kids having smartphones. So I will argue that. If your claim is that they use their smart phones for emergencies, well a cell phone can do just that. Its only purpose is to communicate via text (sms) and calls. With cell phones (flip ones specifically), the parents do not have to worry about "inappropriate things like offensive messages and 18+ videos." Those phones do not allow a child to surf the internet. When you give a smartphone to a dumb kid, it could get hectic. I say dumb, meaning they make decisions that are compulsive and not very wise, but kids are not dumb. They are quite smart, especially when it comes to portable devices. Since technology is always advancing, the younger age groups have a higher chance of being able to understand the newer technology over the parent since that is the generation they grow up with. Even with "parental controls" (which the fact that you had to cite that was legitimate shows this is a feature a lot of people are not familiar with, so how do you expect parents to be aware of this ability?) there are still ways kids can get around anything. Kids can be quite devious. They learn tricks adults don't know (yet). Plus, not all parents block content on their kids' phones. The ones that do, their kids will just go watch porn or whatever at their friends house. You statement "offensive messages" makes me think you are referring to bullying? It is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent bullying. No "restriction" exists that will decipher if something might be considered as bullying over text messaging/other social media platforms. However, if a kid does not have a phone at all, they most likely don't have access to Snapchat or Facebook at home so they are less likely to be cyber bullied. As for being bullied in real life, that is also unpreventable (but stoppable). When you say "the kid could use the phone to use like a relieve tool (as using to talk to a friend and playing games)" that not only has horrible grammar, but is also off putting to think about since kids spend most of their time in school anyways. They don't need "relievers", which are ultimately just distractions. What they need is to be paying attention, like I had to growing up without a phone (until my very first phone, the Samsung Juke). I get that it is possible to relieve [their stress] but playing games and texting while in class are not beneficial in any way. If the kid has a lot on his mind, then he can go see the school counselor but just using the phone to a ease the pain/whatever emotion is not a justifiable excuse.As for the need to call in case of emergencies, well that depends a great deal on how much freedom these kids' parents allow them to have. There is a legal curfew for kids being outside for a reason, to reduce the chance of any emergencies. If parents payed better attention to their kids and knew EXACTLY where they would be and when, then there also would be less of a chance that any emergency would occur and not be handled. Let's say Sally's parents give her the okay to walk to a friend's house after school, the parents at Sally's friend's home would be responsible if anything were to happen. If Sally lied to her mother and actually walked with her friend to a boy's house whose parents are not home or they walk to a park (anywhere that isn't Sally's friend's house), then ultimately Sally is at fault for whatever may or may not occur. However, in the event of it being nobody's "fault" but rather just something that happened to Sally out of the blue as she was obeying her mother's instructions (or she was simply just not being conniving), then a phone would come in handy. Whether it be to call 9-1-1 because she fell on the sidewalk and broke her fibula or was abducted Liam Neeson-Taken-style, anything requiring assistance of some sort can be acquired through a cell phone. It does not have to be smartphone, unless she wants to take selfies while in pain or kidnapped (I am being completely sarcastic). I currently live in Chicago with the highest crime rate and gun violence in the United States, so I'm pretty street smart. I go to college there. I have personally witnessed students my age or higher get mugged. The one common thing I've seen in a lot of cases is that you are more likely to get robbed while on your phone. In fact, here are some statistics that prove my point: "1 in 10 smartphone owners have been victims of phone theft" (https://transition.fcc.gov...). 40% of phone theft occurs from 12 pm-5pm (^) [That is coincidentally the time when kids get out of school]. "research showed that children under 15 were the most common targets with up to half a million young people aged between 11 and 15 falling victim to phone theft" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). In England, "certain groups are especially vulnerable - 14- to 24-year-olds, and particularly women, are more likely than any other group to be victims of mobile phone theft" (http://www.independent.co.uk...) The most common phone thievery there is directly pickpocketed from the user. In America, 11% of the phones stolen are taken from the person [which is still a lot, though it may not seem like a large amount]. The rest are due to negligence. [Leaving behind a phone is more commonly the case in America, which means people are irresponsible so kids maybe shouldn't add to this ]. "And the research showed that children under 15 were the most common targets with up to half a million young people aged between 11 and 15 falling victim to phone theft" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Today's study added that the typical phone robbers were boys aged 14 to 17" (^) "Overall, mobile phone theft has risen 190% since 1995" (^). "70 million smartphones are lost each year, with only 7 percent recovered" (http://www.channelpronetwork.com...). Basically, what I'm getting at is kids with smartphones are a major liability for parents. The do not need all those fancy features such as access to the internet and downloadable games. |
44 | 9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00003-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because women's day sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it...."When would Vagina Day be?"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. "Why cancel work on that day?"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'"How is it celebrated?"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D |
26 | b5a3d064-2019-04-18T19:19:23Z-00004-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | : Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standardized exi I negate the resolution... As Con, Pro has the burden of proof. He must prove the resolution's benefit outweighs the harms. I have no qualms with his definitions. Rebuttals: Observations: 1. Without the intervention of the government there will be no requirements and rewards for students and schools to achieve, thus schools have no desire to improve the quality of education. Schools wasting their money isn't the government's problem, the school has earned the money through educating students well. The government cannot be the source of the graduation problem because: 1.By eliminated standard exit exams governments cannot observe the flaws of their system 2. Schools have no requirements to meet thus they cannot be ranked and everyone, even the dimwitted ones, can graduate with a poor education by sleeping through class. 3. A majority of poor educated will extremely affect society over time, such as increasing poverty and destroying the middle class. V: Quality of Education. -Students, even in high school, have not fully developed judgement to make right choices. For example is doing drugs a right choice? No, it is not yet students still do it because they lack keen judgement. With the government interfering by making certain drugs illegal their "using" rates have gone down. With the school interfering by education students about the harms of drugs and enforcing drug consequences on campus are extreme, thus this dissuades students from doing drugs and harms. In this example I have proven that the government must intervene to secure justice. -Allowing students to make their own choices it is harmful for 2 reasons: 1. Reasoned above. 2. They do not know what choices are beneficial for the future. For example: We put the baby on the table mixed with sweet foods and other foods that's healthy. Would the baby naturally go for the healthy food or the sweet food? Study shows that babies are more prone to sweet foods. This is a metaphor, the baby=teen; sweet=harmful in disguise; healthy=bright future. If we take out government intervention then teenagers are at the stage of the baby, not knowing what's right and wrong, thus they take what they instantly favor, failure in disguise. So by taking the government out and allowing students to make choices we are destroying them. (Hobbes) 3. People in general are already evil, the government is there to encase this evil; so by removing government intervention we are allowing this "evil" to create chaos (Hobbes). -Standardized test to graduate actually increases the quality of education because schools are striving to be the top; standardized test allows schools to observe their ranks and form ways to compete and do better to gain more students and by having more students they school receives more and better resources from the government. Basically standardized tests increase the quality of education. -Refer to observation rebuttal. Thus with the government doing it's duty and requiring standardized test for graduation they are attempting to lead us into the right direction and this increases the quality of education. VC: Everyone is getting a quality education. Prove how it's unfair to tax payers. Fairness cannot be used as a VC because VC is an action to achieve V and fairness is a noun. Therefore your VC cannot achieve your V and your V contradicts your VC and position. Note-Sub-points are used if you have more than one point. Just a tip:) C1: -Standardized tests cannot be biased otherwise they'll be sued, states don't want that. Prove that state test requires outside knowledge. You don't need knowledge about "matching price" to pass a test. In CA we take the CAHSEE which includes math to Alg 2 and basic grammar, a majority from my school passed. Standardized tests isn't unfair because students can simply switch schools if they feel their district is too lenient. As school districts see a decreasing amount of students attending they will naturally reform and increase quality to compete for students. As for the CEP evidence this shows that blacks need to work harder, they are not naturally dumb. Therefore the standardized test is crucial for the quality of education. C2: -There are numerous ways schools can receive money such as the amount of students attending, the intelligence of the students, etc. Again as described above standard test ranks schools and naturally schools compete for the top to gain students and impacts include increasing the housing market, population, and overall the income of the government to prevent furloughs. An example would be the competing ranks of colleges. Say we don't have standard tests requirements then these way low students would graduate and end up in the streets because they simply cannot comprehend a job application, how did you achieve fairness? -By educating the average to become more intelligent and adding the already brilliant we have a majority of intelligent citizens that are ready to work. As for the low students they can keep studying until they pass, thus they are able to at least read the job application rather than seeing them half-rotten on the streets in the future. sub a: High school students are becoming adults we don't require much creativity. Cutting out on arts, sports, and music for tests are justified because after all getting a steady job is more important than playing a guitar on the street hoping for money. Art has reach it's limit, limit's abstract. There could never be another type of art. Sports can be fundraised by players. Children can still express themselves through writing or clubs that are crucial for college acceptance. Tests do not limit schools instead they allow students to seek new alternatives. C3: This contention has no link to VC so it falls. If we wish to adopt Finland's method then it isn't just the standard test we must eliminate but our nation's morals, values, and virtue because Finland is different from the U.S. For example if we adopt China's education system then we are forging the future of communism. C4: This evidence contradicts with his VC and his position because the language section and math section are so low that poorly educated students can graduate so there is no need to remove the standardized test. My opponent also goes on to describe an alternative, this contradicts again because even if you can't pass the exit exam you will still graduate, thus requiring exit exams achieves fairness (supporting con's position). Not requiring it doesn't achieve fairness because the ones that party late at night that didn't have to sweat to graduate and the ones that study until 3am graduate, meaning both graduates but the one that studies adds more effort into graduation. If you put more effort on a science project, another student simply had his little brother doodle on his board on the last day and in the end you both tied for 1st place, is it fair for the other guy who didn't do anything to win? No, similarly here removing exit exams doesn't achieve fairness. If he wishes to keep this argument then his VC and position are invalid. In conclusion I have attacked all points made. His value and value criterion contradicts his position. For the reasons above public high school students are required to pass standard exam to graduate. It remains negated. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals. |
6 | 76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Going to college is worth Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com... |
44 | 9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because 'Women's Day' sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too, so it deserves to be celebrated and idolized. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it...."When would Vagina Day be?"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. "Why cancel work on that day?"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'"How is it celebrated?"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D |
50 | 4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00001-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income His plan increases the "income effect" compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent's argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent's plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con's plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. "[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers' desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the "welfare to work" reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the "weaker" nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance)."[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con's plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con's claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a "crowd out" effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn't providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent's plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its "cut throat" capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any "positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts."[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only "15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s."[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, "most are in poverty."[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent's counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent's plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found "that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states."[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly... |
42 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | 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; |
47 | 6bc9904a-2019-04-18T16:46:57Z-00002-000 | Is homework beneficial? | homework As a current student I believe that there is way to much homework. There are studies that have shown that homework only increases stress and is only another way for teachers to dock students grades. Last semester in math I had a C- just because I didn't do all of my homework because of all 10 of the extracurricular activities that I did. I believe that they shouldn't ban homework completely but reduce the amount that is given. |
47 | ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity To say that I have sited no evidence to back up my argument, I have left sources. My debate is reliable, and also far better than the argument that you are making! Now back to the main cause - Homework! Time is valuable. We all need some time to ourselves. School already takes up a lot of time and it is necessary to have time which does not involve concentrating on learning. Education is not the only important activity in everyone"s day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home, there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children do their homework. Homework does not only take up time doing the homework at home but also takes up time in class. First there is the time that the teacher takes when explaining the task. Then more time is taken going through the homework when it is done and marked. This time could be better spent engaging with the class to find out what they do and don"t understand. The answer to this is to have more time in class rather than boring homework. We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time. Also when you mentioned, "My partner also completely conceded and dropped the preparation advantage where if home work prepares people for the workforce..." I will reiterate that it doesn't prepare us for adult life. Your life in school prepared you in just the wrong way for your life at work. In early school, your classes are chosen for you, the class material is outlined by the government (of all things). In later schools, you have some say in which classes you take, and what sports or arts you"re involved in. Then in college, a world a freedom of choice! You can pick all of your classes, pick your major, even invent a major! Study abroad, switch from economics to veterinary science just by filling out a form, play sports, start clubs, join a fraternity, take summer and winter classes. You"re in charge of everything! Then you get a job, and suddenly, all of that freedom is gone. At work, you do what you are told to do, on someone else's schedule, to someone else"s standards, regardless of whether you think it"s the right thing in the right way. You have just fallen from the pinnacle of being in control to the depths of being controlled. One of the biggest things that causes stress (as a student) is homework. One of the main reasons is, as a student, I don"t think for a second that I actually benefit from homework. To me, it"s just something that causes unnecessary stress and in the end doesn"t actually do much for you. Sure, some practice of graphing concepts is good, but why couldn"t we just do board work in class? I think that we, as students, should not have homework for a number of reasons. Some people say that homework is good. Some people say that homework is bad. Some just don"t care (not many). The people that say it is good usually argue that, well, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. Like I said, why not do board work in school instead of sending work home? The dictionary definition of "school" is: "an institution where instruction is given, especially to persons under college age: The children are at school." In this case, why not just do a little practice to let the teachers make sure that the student understands the concept, and once they do, why do teachers bother to give them 10-20 more problems to do at home? Besides, from what I understand about teachers, they (maybe you are a teacher as well, you can possibly relate to this) hate grading homework and find it just as annoying as we do. Another reason we shouldn"t have homework: it causes unnecessary stress. If what I said in the above paragraph is true, which it is, then homework is pointless. If there is no point to homework, then why assign it? All it does is cause stress that isn"t needed. Why would you do that? I have (as a student) had quite a lot of times where I have been up a lot longer than usual doing homework, sometimes make-up from missed school, sometimes because I simply forgot that we had homework in a particular subject and therefore didn"t do it. I then had to make it up the next night, and got marked down for it. Humans are forgetful. That means I got marked down because of human nature. Some people say that homework teaches students self-discipline and responsibility; I know from experience that that is NOT true. I also found NO evidence for that while I was researching. Others say that it creates a link between school and family. OK, so other than intruding on time that could be spent with family how does it do that? Still, some say that it helps kids to like learning. Again, I know from experience that this is NOT TRUE! If anything, it does the exact opposite of that. We all know it: Everyone hates homework. If we get too much homework it can take the enjoyment out of learning. No matter how engaging the teacher is in class homework will almost certainly be stressful, boring and tiring. It is simply much harder to make homework engaging and interesting as it is often done on our own. We know that there is no direct link between how much homework is set and grades. Studies done on this come to different conclusions so teachers should only set homework when they are sure it is needed. When we only get homework occasionally we will consider that piece more important and a better use of time. "stress is good in adequete quantities." - spelling mistake there partner (should be adequate). I agree in adequate quantities - however, in school, teacher push this to the limit and I certainly do not think 4-5 hours in an adequate stress level for a 15 year old boy. I rest my case! |
32 | 18a26ffe-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Quiz before Vote Americans have a responsibility to know the topics or people that they are voting for. Also laws are confusing and people have voted incorrectly before because they misunderstood what they were voting for, or against. To make sure that Americans understand what/who they are voting for, they should be required to pass a short quiz on the issues before voting. If they fail then they can be given information written by both sides and if needed can have someone read them this information. Then they will be allowed to vote. It would be important to set up safeguards against people being swayed one way or another if they needed assistance understanding. It is important that each American have a voice and that there voice is accurately translated through our voting system. |
28 | 52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be illegal. Prostitution should be illegal for four reasons: (1) prostitution causes irreparable physical and psychological harms, (2) legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution, (3) prostitution increases human trafficking, and (4) prostitution perpetuates gender inequality.1. Women who prostitute are irreparably harmed both physically and psychologically.The average life span for a woman entering prostitution is four years. No other population of women has a higher death rate. [1] Prostitutes are often murdered. But this high death rate is not just the result of homicide; it's also caused by the incredible violence and brutality that prostitutes face every day.Prostitutes experience an extensive catalog of violence. Their hair is pulled, their faces are ejaculated on, their breasts are squeezed; they are slapped, pinched, verbally abused, threatened, beaten, cut with knives, burned with cigarettes, and gang raped. [1] Victims of torture describe very similar acts. [2] And like victims of torture, prostitutes report injuries such as bruises, mouth and teeth injuries, vaginal bleeding, internal injuries, head injuries, and broken bones. [3] Moreover, these results are not limited to illegal prostitution. These results include prostitutes working in countries where prostitution is legal, in brothels with so-called "safety policies." [4]Prostitution also has psychological consequences. For example, prostitutes are at a heightened risk of depression, mania, suicidal thoughts, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders and chemical dependence. [1] Prostitutes report a sense of "splitting," of "leaving my body" or going "someplace else mentally." The result is a higher incidence of dissociative disorders. [5] Without surprise, prostitution also leads to a higher incidence of PTSD.The psychological damage stems from the act itself. Even women who choose to prostitute cannot avoid the trauma associated with constant sexual degradation, and with having one's body sold as a commodity. The psychological damage is often unconscious and manifests after-the-fact. Thus, no amount of "improvement" to the conditions of prostitution can eliminate its psychological consequences.2. Legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution.Rates of assault and rape against prostitutes remains extremely high even in countries that have legalized prostitution. [6] Legalization would draw thousands more women into prostitution without any demonstrable decrease in violence. For example, in European countries where prostitution has been legalized -- or had elements of prostitution legalized -- the number of prostitutes has more than doubled after legalization. [7] Yet violence towards these prostitutes has not decreased. In fact, studies have found that women working in brothels and other indoor facilities have less control because the owners control what sex acts they do and with whom. [1] Often, the result has been more violence towards prostitutes than in places where prostitution is legal. Legalization has been tried. It has not eliminated violence in prostitution. Sometimes, it has even led to more violence towards prostitutes. Thus, prostitution should not be legalized.3. Legalizing prostitution would increase human trafficking.We can all agree that human trafficking is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security.Studies have found that legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking. For example, a 2012 study published by World Development found that countries with legalized prostitution have higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. [8] The International Organization of Migration attributed the rise in trafficking to the rise of prostitution in Europe. [9] And the U.S. Department of State recognized that legalized prostitution makes anti-trafficking work more difficult. [9]Everyone agrees that trafficking is a violation of basic human rights. But trafficking would not exist without prostitution. The two go hand-in-hand. Without dispute, all the empirical data we have suggests that legalization of prostitution leads to increased trafficking.4. Legalizing prostitution would perpetuate gender inequality.Prostitution is about men's control over women's sexuality. The prostitution industry exploits the economic, physical, and social weakness of women and children, in order to service men. To put it bluntly, legalized prostitution exists for the benefit of men. Which in turn ends up perpetuating gender inequality.Think about it this way: Prostitution is like female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is often represented as something that women choose, either for themselves or for their female children. Indeed, the practice is usually carried out by women alone. But does that make female genital mutilation okay? No. But why shouldn't female genital mutilation be legal if its carried out by women alone? Because like prostitution, female genital mutilation exists solely for the benefit of men. Male ideas of female sexuality are what underlie the practice, and it is those ideas that female genital mutilation attempts to satisfy.Prostitution perpetuates gender inequality in the same way that female genital mutilation perpetuates gender inequality. Degrading, patriarchal ideas of female sexuality underlie both practices. And both practices are thus an expression of men's control over women's sexuality.For all the above reasons, prostitution should be illegal.References:[1] Melissa Farley, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," published in Feminism and Psychology.[2] "Nigerian women tortured by prostitution ring in Greece," Associated Press, August 15, 2005.[3] A Comparative Study of Women Trafficked in the Migration Process: Patterns, Profiles and Health Consequences of Sexual Exploitation in Five Countries, http://action.web.ca...[4] Patricia Hynes and Janice Raymond, "Put in Harms Way: The Neglected Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking in the United States."[5] C.A. Ross, M. Farley, and H.L. Schwartz, "Dissociation Among Women in Prostitution."[6] I. Vanwesenbeeck et al, "Professional HIV risk taking, levels of victimization, and well-being in female prostitutes in the Netherlands."[7] Joan Smith, "Why British men are rapists."[8] http://papers.ssrn.com...[9] J. Raymond, "Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution." |
30 | ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00007-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Lawful concealed carry is a good thing I accept the challenge, concealed carry is detrimental to the public,I will state my argument after yours |
36 | 8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Thanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that "If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. " This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is "nothing can be more of a sport than a sport". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be "more of a sport" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that "there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including "paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. " My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks " Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? ", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as "competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity" I accept this definition. He says that "Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that "It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any "general vicinity". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that "the distance is irrelevant. ", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are "the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that "In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult " to kill it as it is running away", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
41 | 61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools No, the schools have phones, the students can use those. |
16 | 4766341a-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00000-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | kevin likes bears KEVIN DOES NOT DO THIS, HE Castrates THEM USING HIS MOUTH. |
21 | 62c89a27-2019-04-18T18:12:27Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | The world should focus on climate change than on global economy! As a brief road map I will 1) Discuss the implications of the resolution, I will then 2) describe the global economic crisis and it's implications, then 3) I will discuss Franlinpoet's understandable concerns that he mentions above. Finally, I will end with an emotionless conclusion.Resolution reads, "The world should focus on climate change than on global economy."It's only safe to assume that this resolution is regarding now and not later and not forever. So the resolution is a call for action either for economic policies or environment policies to become the focus of the legislative groups of various nations. Thus it is not the job of either Franklinpoet or me to state that the economy or environment should always be the main focus. This debate is only focused on determining what governments should be focused primarily on in their upcoming legislative meetings. Should they begin the process of cooperating with scientists and cleaning our good, green Earth?ORShould they continue the process of repairing our damaged infrastructure and economies?And it is this valid question that begins our debate today.The Biding Shackles of the Economy " The global economy is in the worst shape since the dark days of 2009. Six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession. The U.S. economy is struggling again. And the economic superstars of the developing world — China, India and Brazil — are in no position to come to the rescue. They're slowing, too. " [1] 1) Europe is in a crisis in the status-quo, as illustrated through [2]:A) Spain. In the city Castilla La-Mancha sixty-nine percent of homes built in the last three years are still unsold. Their mega company Martinsa Fadesa declared bankruptcy at the dawn of the recession. Unemployment has risen by 425,000 people. Subsequently sales have fallen 9% and 18% with household goods. The Finance minister called it the worst national recession in a half century.B) Greece. Poor thing, their GDP is now 16% below the pre-crisis peak. 16% is astronomical. Their streets have been covered in riots. The political situation has been malicious and and has become literally violent. And with their wanting economy their carrying the rest of the Euro with them, this has a great effect on the entire continent.C) Portugal received the cold shoulder by Moody's investor when they knocked their rating from Aa2 to a dismal and greatly implicative A1. In 2011 the Prime Minister announced on television that the country had to take immediate steps due to the fact that their nation altogether was facing bankruptcy.D) Iceland. The government collapsed on January 27th, 2009. Enough said.The list goes on and on. The U.K., specifically Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, were all hit very hard. The common denominator of all this is millions upon millions of people have lost their jobs. Once successful nations, like Iceland, have corroded within themselves. This is a global epidemic, as the same has happened in Asia. And this, this is happening right now. Not hypothetically tomorrow but visible through your window. Real. Factual. Tangible. 2) United States [3]The sucker that started it. I'm a huge fan of the Economist and a couple months ago they wrote a phenomanel analysis on America's situation. Basically, what it concluded is that America's middle-class is becoming swiftly non-existent. The reason being is they have abandoned their innovative, manufacturing roots. It has been dispersed to other nations, or other nations picked up the torch on such things like innovation (China, Japan.) The 2008 crisis only worsened the situation by making the dwindling of the middle class even more expediate. Without a middle class the economy of the United States is in big trouble. And the way global economy is set, intrinsically, places America as the influencer, hence why America started the Great Recession and it spread like a wild-fire to the rest of the world. If this problem is not fixed with a sense urgency then this Recession has no end in sight. [2]The middles class must be buffered if this recession is to have an end in sight. " In today's interconnected world, we can no longer afford to look only at what goes on within our national borders," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said earlier this month. "This crisis does not recognize borders. This crisis is knocking at all our doors.If government establish the economy as the main priority then you solve for re-establishing innovation and infrastructure because with a healthy economy--healthy investment is inevitable.Investment pays for the scientist's job who is trying to stop the ambiguously quantified climate change problem.You solve for the economy then you easily solve back for the environment. The Franklinpoet ConcernsThe first thing I would like to mention is that there is still debates among people much more qualified than us on whether people are actually the cause of climate change. If we aren't then Franklinpoet has no solvency. So there's already uncertainty to his solvency with that matter.The second thing I would like to discuss is that Franklinpoet attempts to answer back for the economic crisis with his Zimbabwe analysis. Well actually he doesn't even solve for it, he just states if global warming happened in Zimbabwe then the economy would get even worse. So there is actually no solvency for the economy in Franklinpoet's paradigm, he just attempts to solve for one thing which probably won't happen hundreds of years from now, if that. But his plan is not comprehensive at all to the world's comprehensive problems.The third issue I would like to discuss, is who exactly is the enforcement in Franklinpoet's advocacy? I hope it's not government, as that process of cleaning the Earth, through gov., would be slowed down with so much red tape, it would be completely futile. So inevitably Franklinpoet's enforcement would be the scientists from the private sector. How's that private sector doing in today's economy? If you want to seriously combat the ambiguously quantified climate-change, then you need a lot of money and power, especially since you'd have to combat nations like China, who wants nothing to do with greenness. Right now, though, there is not alot of excess money to be had. Franklinpoet's advocacy is genuine and good and completely understandable but it's slightly putting the cart before the horse.In other words, you wouldn't try to cure a dog of cancer when it's choking on a bone.To warrant my claim here are the numbers," Only 14% of those with a PhD in biology or the life sciences can find an academic post within 5 yrs.Pharmcos also have been consolidated and jobs slashed—a 300,000 job "bloodbath," as described by one expert.Just 38% of new PhD chemists are employed.If you want to fix the environment, then give them more man and financial power, and that starts with curing the financial landscape.The harms of climate change that Franklinpoet lists are slightly entertaining because they are 1) homelessness, 2)Poverty, 3)Unemployment, 4)Private sector downfall.My advocacy solves for these harms, granted governments make the right choices when they do focus on the economy, but these are the exact harms that are occurring right now, in today's world by the global economic crisis. ConclusionSo it comes down to this:Franklinpoet: Start working on the environment because if not, it could be devastating to economies, time period unknown.Bruce: Keeping working on economic solutions because our economies are currently going through devastation, and a healthier investment basis solves back for the environment.[1]http://www.google.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://hopeycopey.blogspot.com...*Blob, yes, numbers legit, albeit. I observed the same numbers from multiple sources.* |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.