query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
10 | 6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00003-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Not getting children vaccinated Not true , there are ways to get around vaccinating your children before attending school. You can state that it goes against what you believe in and you can be excused. Many parents don't have their children vaccinated. There is a sudden rise we are seeing in diseases such as measles. This occurs because children are not all being vaccinated. There are also many immigrants coming to this country with their children not getting vaccinated. It is also not fair to risk your child's health by not getting them vaccinated. Many parents that don't get their children vaccinated were vaccinated themselves. Would you rather the small chance of your child being vaccinated or risk them contracting diseases such as small pox, polio, hepatitis A , measles , mumps , rubella, hepatitis B , meningitis, some ear infections. It is more harmful for your child to contract these diseases than to actually have the vaccine. It is very rare for side effects and for the most part they are small. There is no actual evidence to link the MMR vaccine to autism. |
21 | 7f312d2e-2019-04-18T15:18:56Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Global Warming is killing us Greetings. The arguments you are presenting are common among the left side of the political spectrum over the issue of Global Warming/Climate Change. The negation of this debate will now provide eight points as to why the public has been mislead over the complexities of this issue: 1. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4"F is within the +/- 5"F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990. 2. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. 3. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed. 4. Global warming and cooling are caused by fluctuations in the sun's heat (solar forcing), not by the minor greenhouse effect of human-produced gases such as CO2 and methane. Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased .19%. This increase correlates with the rise in surface temperatures in the US. 5. Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes. 6. Rising temperatures are caused primarily by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not by CO2. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are driven by natural storm systems and ocean currents. According to a Mar. 5, 2010 study by researchers at NOAA, water vapor in the stratosphere was responsible for increasing the rate of warming during the 1990s by 30%. 7. The increased hurricane activity over the past decade (1995-2005), including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005. 8. Deep ocean currents cause climate warming and cooling in long term cycles. The minor greenhouse effect of human produced CO2 pales in comparison. Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - a naturally occurring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. |
24 | a44baae-2019-04-18T17:58:49Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The united states should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts That is a very nice arguement but these taxes will not benefit us citizens. (To shorten this because im lazy im going to list facts that will generally refute your case. If theres a specific arguement or impact i will tell you) "The confluence of fiscal policy changes scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 " sometimes referred to as the "fiscal cliff" " poses serious challenges for policy makers. One area of disagreement is the increase in tax rates for high-income taxpayers resulting in part due to the sunset of elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. President Obama has called for the reinstatement of the higher top tax rates in his budget submission to the Congress, while key Republican members of Congress have called for their extension. The increase in the Medicare tax and its expansion to unearned income for high-income earners under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) further contributes to the increase in top tax rates. The concern over the top individual tax rates has been a focus, in part, because of the prominent role played by flow-through businesses " S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships " in the US economy and the large fraction of flow-through income that is subject to the top two individual income tax rates. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector work force and pay 44% of federal business income taxes.1 The number of workers employed by large flow-through businesses is also significant: more than 20 million workers are employed by flow-through businesses with more than 100 employees. This report uses the EY General Equilibrium Model of the US Economy to examine the impact of the increase in the top tax rates in the long-run. While a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examined the near-term effects of all of the federal government fiscal policies under scrutiny at the end of 2012 and found them to be of sufficient size to push the economy into recession at the beginning of 2013, this report focuses on the long-run effects of the increase in the top tax rates. This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates: The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%. The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision). The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%. The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains. With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% in 2012 to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%. These higher tax rates result in a significant increase in the average marginal tax rates (AMTR) on business, wage, and investment income, as well as the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new business investment. This report finds that the AMTR increases significantly for wages (5.0%), flow-through business income (6.4%), interest (16.5%), dividends (157.1%) and capital gains (39.3%). The METR on new business investment increases by 15.8% for the corporate sector and 15.6% for flow-through businesses. This report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending. Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013 ii Through lower after-tax rewards to work, the higher tax rates on wages reduce work effort and labor force participation. The higher tax rates on capital gains and dividend increase the cost of equity capital, which discourages savings and reduces investment. Capital investment falls, which reduces labor productivity and means lower output and living standards in the long-run. Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3%, or $200 billion, in today"s economy. Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5% or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today"s economy.++ Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively. Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8%, reflecting a decline in workers" living standards relative to what would have occurred otherwise." http://waysandmeans.house.gov... Now i would like you focus on the 3 to last point that has + after it. This tax increase on the rich buisnesses and the average american will result in 710,000 jobs. Now this is better then my opponents because this facts that my opponent has given is from a organization, yes this organization is out there to help people with no profit but mine is a government website. Also the reason why we are not letting our nation go over this fiscal cliff is to avoid these tax increases and its affects which i show through my one fact. |
44 | 9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00000-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday I would like to respond to my opponent's further arguments as follows: "We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance..... We call them whores." Sex-workers, or "whores" as my opponent crudely terms them, have no choice but to advertise their wares in order to attract punters: if they don"t turn enough tricks they won"t get their fix of crack and, also, their gash-broker is likely to give them a proper slap. This is different from the educated, middle class young ladies who seek to intimidate conservative Christians and other prudes by flaunting their minges in public. "I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing.... Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. " But what about conservative Christians and other prudes? Don"t their sensitivities matter? "That depends entirely on the smell.... It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli." I"ve often wondered why ladies" tango batter smells like fish, but it"s never reminded me of the smell of broccoli"I wonder where my opponent picks up his women" "Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: 'Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS!!!!!!!!'" It is true that American citizens have, over the years, been forced to concede numerous human rights and I assume my opponent has in mind former civil liberties such as the right to own slaves, the right to hunt buffalos and the right to shoot any troublesome Indians one might encounter I am sure these rights are much missed by many Americans today. Therefore, it is important that the right to enjoys ones" own personal space down the pub without having some quivering quim thrust in one"s face doesn"t go by the wayside too. Thank you. |
15 | aefcf694-2019-04-18T17:34:55Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that "nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research)." A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS " Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop "microbrains" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the "AIDS Cocktail", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print. |
38 | e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use 1st round of counterarguments:Rebuttal for productivity: (wikipedia is not a reliable source by the way) there are many health uses for marijuana - it is actually not a bad drug for you if you use it in moderation. Here are some health benefits of using marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease, The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder, While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease, Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.Rebuttal for adictiveness: Your claim is simply not true - it is very unlikely to be addicted, "although marijuana may be addictive for some, 91 percent of those who try it do not get hooked. Further, marijuana is less addictive than many other legal and illegal drugs." ~scientificamericanRebuttal for short and long term effects: If it is so addictive, then how come only 9% of people who try it get addicted? You are rambling on assumptions that you made based souly on your OPINION. Next round, please use evidence to back up your claim - it will then be a more reliable argument.Rebuttal for Various Strains: It won't though - as I have stated before, there are so many health and long-term benefits of marijuana, they outweigh the risks. Anything can be harmful if used very often - even drugs that are suppost to HELP you; and thank you for further proving my point with productivity.Reuttal for smoking joints: Actually, marijuana INCREASED USERS IQ. Here is a study: "Here's how the study was done: A group of young, middle-class adults was assembled, consisting of non-tokers, light pot smokers, and heavy users. Light users were those who smoked less than five joints a week, heavy users toked an average of 33 joints each week. Researchers used urine samples to confirm marijuana use or abstinence. veryone in the study had been subjected to IQ tests between the ages of nine and twelve. They subjected this crew to follow-up IQ tests to see how their lifetime use of marijuana might have affected their IQ. They found that the non-smokers IQ's stayed the same or went up slightly. The light smokers had an average IQ increase of five points, more than the non-smokers. That's right. People who smoked weed moderately experience and increase in their IQ scores by 5 points compared to people who didn't smoke weed." ~spiritscienceandmetaphysicsSources:http://www.businessinsider.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com... |
8 | a039e5e3-2019-04-18T18:54:55Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Given my knowledge on abortion, if it is legal then it will benefit the mother. If abortion is legal then it will create a safe way for a mother to abort her baby and it will give the mother the ability to decide what she wants to do with her body. Abortion has been legal since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973, where women were given their personal rights to decide on what they would like to do to their bodies, which has led to safe ways to abort a mother's baby; therefore abortion should be legal, presumably, unless abortion brings harm to the mother. |
32 | 70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Banned from voting.... You feel spoon fed by me? I don't even know what to say? Are you calling me mommy? |
17 | 21ae906a-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal. I understand your argument, and I agree. I'm really not in the mood to debate right now.. I'd just like for you to know I'm only 15 so sorry if I seemed dumb! |
34 | 58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Thanks for this debate and good luck: DEFINITIONS: -Impact -From: Merriam-Webster (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) -"To have a direct effect or impact on. " Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro. -Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win. -Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States. A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool. - Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No… Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively. B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites. -How can something have a 'direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything. In the end of this debate, ask yourself… Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer? Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer? Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun? Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun? Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool. |
6 | 3c53b33f-2019-04-18T15:23:42Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | "Christians" - The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept! Churches across the world teach that YAHUAH's Ten Commandments were abolished - nailed to the cross with The Messiah, YAHUSHUAH, and that they are no longer required to be kept under the New Covenant. Is this what YAHUSHUAH and His Apostles taught? Did they continue to teach and observe the commandments? What does the Bible say? For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. - 1 John 5:3 In Matthew 5:17, The Messiah says, "Thinke not that I am come to destroy the lawe or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." So why is that people think that the laws are done away with? YAHUSHUAH clearly advised us NOT TO EVEN THINK THIS, yet Bible scholars and ministers GO AGAINST the teaching of The Messiah, and teach that we do not have to keep The Most High's laws. We are clearly warned of these false teachers by Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – "For suh are false Apostles, deceitfull workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. V14 And no marveile, for Sathn himself is transformed into an Angel of light. V15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also bee transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." Satan's ministers pawn themselves off as The Messiah's ministers and Satan makes himself out to be YAHUSHUAH! Apostle John taught throughout his writings that the law is still to be observed by YAHUAH's people. In John 5:14 & 8:11 The Messiah told people to "sin no more". WHAT IS SIN? I Jn 3:4 states, "for sinne is the transgression of the law". SIN IS THE BREAKING OF The Most High's COMMANDMENTS! YAHUSHUAH said not to break them anymore! John clearly states that we don't even know The Messiah IF WE DON'T keep the commandments (I Jn 2:3-6). He continued to show that we are to keep the commandments in the book of Revelation. Rev 12:17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Now read Rev 14:12, " Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 22:14 states: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." What about the apostle Paul? False teachers take Paul's writings out of context to say that the Law is done away with. The apostle Peter gave warning of this in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul himself kept the law and declared, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". He wrote to the Romans saying "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13). Concerning the GRACE of The Most High that we are under, he asked, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" V2-" God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2). And concerning Law and Faith he asks, " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31) These are simply a few of the countless Scriptures, which show the Truth of Law keeping for "Christians." Let's now view the New Covenant and make a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear throughout it. I'll list each of the commandments as they appear in Exodus 20 first, followed by their New Covenant counterparts. 1st Commandment OC: " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.V3 -Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:2-3) 1st Commandment NC: "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10/ Luke 4:8). 2nd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or thatisin the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fouth generation of them that hate Me; And shewing mercy unto thousands who love Me, and keep my commandments." (Ex 20:4-6) 2nd Commandment NC: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols . . . "(Acts15:20) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:9,10) "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph 5:5) 3rd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." (Ex 20:7) 3rd Commandment NC: "I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Mt 12:36) "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."(Mt 15:8,9) "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) " …that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1Tim 6:1) 4th Commandment OC: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh dayisthe Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in themis, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11) 4th Commandment NC: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mt12:8/Lk 6:5) " . . . it is lawful to do well on thesabbathdays." (Mt12:12) "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day."(Mt 24:20) " . . . they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught." (Mk1:21) "And he said unto them, Thesabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27-28) 5th Commandment OC: "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Ex 20:12) 5th Commandment NC: " . . . Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying,Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Mt15:3-4/Mk 7:10) "Honour thy father and thy mother . . . " (Mt 19:19/Mk 10:19/Lk18:20) 6th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13) 6th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Mt 5:21-22 - see 1Jn 2:9) " . . . Do not kill . . ." (Mk 10:19) 7th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14) 7th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mt 5:27-28) "I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Mt 5:32) "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery . . ." (Mt 19:18/Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) 8th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15) 8th Commandment NC: "Thou shalt not steal . . " (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) "Do not steal . . . " (Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) " . . . thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:10) "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Eph 4:28) "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Rev 9:21) 9th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex 20:16) 9th Commandment NC: " . . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt 12:36-37) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man." (Mt 15:19-20) " . . . Thou shalt not bear false witness . . ." (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) " . . .Do not bear false witness . . . " (Mk10:19/Lk 18:20) 10th Commandment OT: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17) 10th Commandment NT: "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Lk 12:15) "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Rom 7:7)" . . . Thou shalt not covet . . . " (Rom 13:9) |
17 | 21af0c6a-2019-04-18T14:47:21Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal I propose that Marijuana should be legalized. I believe that it's a spectacular opportunity for those who are dealing with the hardships of life to escalate in terms of mood or disease. Studies have shown that Marijuana has the capability of stopping Cancer, curing Glaucoma, reversing effects of Tobacco and ameliorating lung health, decreasing anxiety, ridding of Dravet's Syndrome, etc. C1) A substance that is able to prevent the effects of negative thoughts and emotions, diseases, and seizures should be legal. C2) Without Marijuana, you are going to have people who are outright stressed out, get seizures, and are withering from diseases. P1) Marijuana should be legalized (everywhere) There is a good reason for why police officers think Marijuana should be legal. 3.6 Billion dollars were spent against the usage of pot in 2010. I believe that is an insanely large sum of money to be spent on something as simple as Marijuana usage, which is good for you, and we should be spending this large weight of money on crimes that are actually dangerous, like assaulting others drunkenly. If Tobacco is legal, then why on earth should Marijuana should be illegal? Since Marijuana can reverse the effects of Tobacco and keep your lungs in a healthy state, that makes it even better than Tobacco itself. Sources: 1] http://www.businessinsider.com... 2] http://www.rollingstone.com... |
15 | 88924a74-2019-04-18T15:53:31Z-00007-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public This is for the WODC debate tournament.Bsh1 resolution: Drugs should be tested for safety only.Cooldudebro resolution: Drugs should be tested for both safety and effectiveness. These definitions must not be changed and no new ones shall be added.Drug: a substance that is used as a medicine (1)Public: of, relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc. (2)Effectivness: producing a result that is wanted : having an intended effect (3)Forfeit equals seven point drop.BoP is sharedGood luck!1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
39 | 2879f0f7-2019-04-18T19:43:26Z-00001-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage should be abolished. I'm conceeding this debate. You're right. It was unfair and dishonest of me to use arguments that were not my own. It was a time issue. I am sorry. |
11 | 6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00012-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not. |
36 | e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Bowling is a sport. "Yet track is still a sport. A similar situation occurs with other individualized sports such as swimming, golf, field events such as discus or shot put, etc." Track and the other activities are not sports. "Also, tournament bowling often includes what is referred to as "Baker games" which require teams, not individuals (http://bowling.about.com......). New aspects come into play in this format, such as lineups, less frames bowled, and teamwork. Therefore, you can't receive a full experience of bowling by yourself." Changing the format of a game does not change the basic elements of that game. "Also, there is a major difference between those "bowling for fun" and those who are bowling competitively. You claim that they are the same when you say "If, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. " First, you don't require direct competition 100% of the time, as referred to in the previous argument. Next, there is such a big difference between the two such that they can be considered two separate activities." This debate is on whether bowling is a sport; not whether professional bowling is a different activity than recreational bowling."A sport is a sport if and only if it meets all the requirements: physical and mental skill, athleticism (training yourself physically and mentally to perform more capably and to improve your skill), competition, and strategy. All the other activities you mentioned are not sports because they do not meet all the requirements." In your first argument you had failed to mention a sport needed to meet all those requirements; you just listed attributes of bowling and said it was a sport. I wasn't trying to imply that any of those activities were sports. All your attributes referring to bowlers are irrelevant. I reiterate: A sport is able to be played by anyone who; knows the rules, has the equipment, access to the proper setting, and the requisite amount of participants. Skill doesn't come into play. Even at the highest level of any sport there are players of different skill levels. You wouldn't say that two professional baseball players are playing games of different 'degrees of sport' because they have different batting averages. An activity either is or isn't a sport. If recreational bowling was fundamentally different from professional bowling, they would have different names, not different qualifiers. We can see that the participants of an activity don't decide if it is a sport or not. It is only the elements of an activity that determine if it is a sport. Here, in turn, I must apologize to my opponent; I went back and reread my previous round, and I seem to have left off an aspect of a sport. A sport requires both offensive and defensive strategy, which is why all the activities you mention in your first paragraph aren't sports either. Football, baseball, soccer, cricket, hockey, tennis, lacrosse, and polo are all sports because they have athletes competing directly against each other with both offensive and defensive strategies. The participants of sports can physically affect their opponetnt's performances. Activities like golf, swimming, track and field events, and bowling are games of compared performances. "I will use the common phrase, "If it looks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck." Bowling has all the requirements to be considered a sport. Therefore, how can it be considered that it isn't a sport?" I think the reason for your confusion about what bowling is can be illustrated by looking at your closing statement. The problem with that phrase is that, it is a 'common phrase'. The quote that that phrase is based on is: "I can't prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I'm certainly going to assume that he IS a duck." -Emil Mazey, the secretary-treasurer of the United Automobile Workers for 33 years, said at a labor meeting in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org... People take an actual quote, or meaning of a word, and simplify it, making it more general. It is a problem of discarding precision for ease. This results in common phrases and common definitions. They are close enough to get a general idea across, but lack the specificity of their actual meaning.I would like to, once again, thank my opponent for posting this debate.I will say, in closing, although many might assume bowling is a sport; if you take the time to look beyond the common concept, you will see bowling, while a fine game, is not a sport. |
15 | 3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Thanks Pro. I. Preface My case is mostly going to concentrate on the morality of the issue of animal testing. Virtually all arguments for and against animal testing are reducible to claims about morality and well-being. I take the position that they are both connected, and that the benefits if animal testing so not outweigh the negative effects that are resultant, and extended from the presuppositions of positive animal testing. II. Plagiarism I have never had somebody plagiarise against me like this in a debate before, and I am not sure how to react, but I think this warrants pointing out. Almost the entirety of Pro's opening round is plagiarised, copy pasted verbatim, from existing websites. I have nothing against paraphrasing and referencing, but this is literal word-for-word and easily checkable with google. Pro's sources: 1. http://animal-testing.procon.org... 2. http://ca-biomed.org... And Pro's opening contentions: 1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments - Copied from Source 1 2. There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system - Copied from Source 2 3. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing - Copied fro, Source 2 4. Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to... - Copied from Source 1 5. The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest... - Copied from Source 1 6. Relatively few animals are used in research... - Copied from Source 1 7. But why don't we use humans instead of animals? - Copied from Source 1 I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest. With that out of the way, I expect Pro to construct and bring her own arguments forward for the next round, now I will present my own. For now I will present my own case and address Pro's arguments in my rebuttal rounds. III. Harming sentient beings without consent is immoral As humans, one of the most basic moral acts is to consider the well-being of other conscious beings. This is axiomatically true, and to deny this axiom leads to one's own self-destruction. With this in hand the argument becomes quite simple. It is immoral to deliberately impinge on the well-being of a conscious being Animal testing deliberately impinges in the well being of a conscious being C. Animal testing is immoral Note that this doesn't quite get us to the conclusion and also runs into issues of liberties and rights. But the argument remains valid and a Pro needs to contend this. We can expand the issue further, that if we have a society, or culture that sees animal testing as moral, then we devalue an animal's rights & liberties. We essentially deprioritize an animal's well-being over out fellow species'. However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. I would argue that it is within our capabilities now to generally have a say on what the state of well-being of animals are, given the research on depression, love, pain, and even addition have all come up with positive results.[1] Therefore, Pro needs to content there is a rational and justifiable explanation as to why an animal's well-being should not be prioritised as highly as a human's well-being, given that we know they have comparable capabilities of pain and suffering, and will also evidently value their own well-being. IV. Knock-On effects Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to let Pro's own charts speak on my behalf, billions of chickens are slaughtered every year for food, along with millions in other livestock. Most of which are born and bred in captivity in conditions optimised for profit (and hence human well-being) at the expense of animals. An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture. All things considered, very uncharitable consequences would appear insignificant to us and place most of society in ignorance of what is occurring behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Yes, this is real. V. Alternative solutions/Perspective Medical research had made significant advancements, and hence in vivo testing in animals is far less 'necessary' then it once was. While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today.[2] In vitro testing can go a long way to determining efficacy, toxicity and putative pharmacokinetics of a new drug, and for drug trials, human trials are inevitably necessary anyway. A drug that had passed through phase IV. trials (and this is viable for market) has been tested on hundreds of humans anyway. Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans? The difference between trialling in humans and on animals is that humans are capable of giving consent, and accepting the discomfort, and risks involved in testing. Moreover they are more viable for incentives, for undergoing the risks and inconvenience of trials, which gives a positive moral 'payback'. Animals in the other hand, simply do not have a choice in the matter, they are bred and forced to undergo testing against their wishes, much like our livestock and bred and slaughtered against their wishes. VI. Cosmetics/Medicines All of what I have said so far is directed at pharmaceutical testing, but the resolution also encompasses cosmetics and food testing. The same reasoning provided so far in this debate applies to cosmetics testing, except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests. There simply isn't a moral reason to perform cosmetic & food testing on animals. It is Pro's burden to demonstrate this to be false. VII. Conclusion I am going to cut this round short, as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. Pease provide your arguments in the next round so I may provide a cogent rebuttal VIII. References 1. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 2. http://www.neavs.org... |
48 | f3e3bbd9-2019-04-18T18:54:46Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lower the drinking age The drinking age should be lowered. If at eighteen a kid becomes an adult, than why are they not allowed to have a drink? I see where people have the concern of college kids drinking, but at eighteen a person is an adult and should be allowed to make their own decisions. In the past the drinking age has been changed many times, so there is a chance it may be changed again. An eighteen year old should be allowed to have a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a wedding. It is not fair that people considered adults can't do something so much of as having a drink. The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen that way the whole adult population is legally allowed to consume and buy alcohol. The government does not mind sending eighteen year olds to war, but when it comes down to someone their age wanted to casually have a drink, it is illegal. It is not fair and the drinking age should be lowered. |
21 | 42913349-2019-04-15T20:24:43Z-00009-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | The EU needs to help those suffering from human rights abuses The EU is responsible for its own citizens and not for those that live in other countries or regions. Its burden is to protect human rights for European citizens and not for the entire world. At the moment, because of the economic crisis and austerity measures imposed, all the EU attention should be focused on delivering basic human rights (in terms of basic necessities such as food, shelter and employment) for people in Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries in distress. The burden lies here because the government of a country serves the people of that country and as a union each country accepts some of the burden for others in that union. Others that are outwith that union are not giving any direct benefits for the European Union and therefore should they not be our focus. Any more egregious violations of human rights in these countries would already be sufficient cause for granting asylum without a further offer presented to women who are discriminated against. Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, 'The European union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon', Human Rights Law Review, Vol.11, No.4, 2011, http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/4/645.abstract |
15 | efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00000-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals should be used for Medical Research My opponent has forfeited the last round. Since my opponent was unable to argue, I am unable to argue back. |
40 | 220fc73c-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The US should abolish the death penalty Burden of Proof Con has suggested I should have the burden of proof, and he has given solid reasons for this. I fully embrace this burden. What this means is that I must show a net benefit for abolition of the Death Penalty. If Con is able to thwart my attempt to net neutral, then he wins. Wrongful death of Innocents Con's source to back his 99.72% rightful conviction rate appears to be an off the cuff calculation, and does not compare to the peer reviewed study I submitted in round 1[4]. Also, any innocents killed are a massive problem for DP advocates. After all, it is not a matter of accidental death, but intentionally taking a life. Knowing each and every execution could be an individual not guilty of the crime for which they are condemned means we are crossing our fingers and hoping for justice. Also, Con's assertion 'the DP saves more lives than it kills' is a dubious claim since it relies on the presumption of deterrence. I will cover that aspect more in my rebuttal to Con's deterrence argument below. High Cost of the death penalty Con began this section with an intriguing study which attempts to monetize murder and other crimes. Since the figures are partially based on the cost of prosecution and imprisonment at the DP standards, they would be substantially less with LWOP. Plus, Cohen acknowledges that his sample group was extreme and this may have inflated the estimates. I find this study fascinating, but this aspect of Con's argument relies on the presumption that capital punishment provides deterrence. I will address that subject below. Moving on, T suggests the cost of LWOP would cost more than CP in Washington. I am willing to agree with his annual cost estimate of LWOP for Washington although it was fortuitous the national average and Washington's actual cost are close. However, the number he submitted for the cost of DP in Washington (2.01 million) is completely wrong. The actual cost for DP in Washington is $3.07 million [15]. As far as Texas is concerned, the average cost per inmate is $21,390 per year [16]. My figures were calculated for 40 years imprisonment, but so that we might compare apples to apples I have refigured for 50 years and arrived at just over $1 million for LWOP. $1 million is still a far cry from $2.3 million for CP in Texas and represents a significant reduction of cost. Con has claimed my estimate of DP cost in Texas is flawed because of where it came from (genetic fallacy). I concede I could have used a better source (and I will [17]), but the numbers are valid. If they are flawed in any way, it is because the study only accounted for 7.5 years of trial, appeal, and imprisonment instead of the 15 year average that is common now [17]. The cost is most likely a low estimate. Tejretic's comparison of expenditures related to executions (last year) and the state budget is misguided. In Texas, Capital punishment is paid for by the counties. While they may get a small grant from the state to offset cost, the bulk of the financial burden remains on the county. "The burden is even higher on smaller counties. Jasper County, Texas, raised property taxes by nearly 7% just to pay for a single death penalty case." [18] Not to mention, we are still talking about millions, or billions, of dollars which could be better used. A study from 1978 determined if the DP were abolished we could have an immediate saving of $170 million dollars per year. Consider what Judge Arthur L. Alarcon had to say about the DP in California. "Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions." Plea bargains reduce the cost of capital punishment because they avoid it - at least partially. This backs my point of view in multiple ways. This is an acknowledgement the DP is more expensive than alternatives such as life imprisonment. Secondly, in round 2 Con stated," You forfeit the right violated by you--that's the basic consequence." Pleas bargain are not in-line with that assertion yet Con accepts a lesser sentence as a reasonable consequence. Con is simultaneuosly holding life should be forfiet for life taken, and plea bargaining away from it is kosher. This, of course, is contradictory. Deterrence First, I would like to point out a bit of Gish gallop from Con. He has provided 17 different sources in this section providing only a brief summary of a few of them. It would take a disproportionate amount of time for me to attempt to absorb the information in them and rebut them. Plus, it is unlikely I would have the character count for such an endeavor. I'll hit the high points. I continue to question my opponent's desire to rely on economists instead of criminologists. Criminology is the study of crime from a social perspective. Economists have a much broader social purview. I acknowledge an overlap between the two fields. As an analogy, it is the difference between a maintenance man and an HVAC technician. Both can work on air conditioners, but if you need a new system it is best to utilize the technician's direct experience over the maintenance man's mechanical inclination. Criminologists are the 'technicians' of criminal behavior while economists are the 'jack of all trades'. That being said, Con is dismissing the analysis of three decades worth of studies by the National Research Council of the National Academies in which criminologists conclude deterrence is not clear. Specifically, they found: 1. The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers' perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible. [6] The deterrence effect cannot objectively be substantiated. Prevention of recidivism I argue that it cannot be called "prevention of recidivism" if we remove the potential for the offender to falter. That is like removing the house to get rid of the rats. No one would accept this as a claim of success if they have lost their home in the process. As I said earlier, it is a bizarre claim. Con has not shown CP prevents recidivism, only that we can remove the vessel that houses the offending consciousness. To truly measure recidivism, we must have an individual capable of it. In other words, he or she must still be alive and autonomous. Finally, Con acknowledges murders happen in prison while waiting on the DP. Murders in prison cancel out his claim of a 0% recidivism rate. Con's argument has been negated. DP is just Arguing against Capital punishment is not arguing against retribution (not to be confused with vengeance or revenge), and Con's argument for retribution has left me unscathed. My opponent claims I have dropped a contention of his -"DP is just at least in *some* cases", but this is not a point he has made, at least, not until now. Also, Con's accusation of Correlation causation fallacy is flawed. The studies I provided are of many hundreds of cases, considering many factors, and are corroborated by other such studies nationwide. I have already explained that any system which murders innocents in the name of justice is not just. We cannot in good conscience condone such actions in the least – not even for the worst non rehabilitatable offenders (assuming such a thing exists). Resources could be better spent on prevention of future criminals (education, gang prevention, mental health services, drug and alcohol recovery, etc.) instead of disposal of a 'lost cause'. The resources we waste on CP is an injustice to future generations. Since we have every reason to expect our population to increase, utility is best served by prevention of future criminals. We have many options in this regard, and many under-utilized programs that have been making a verifiable effective difference. [19] In summary, DP is not just - it kills innocents and is arbitrary. Recidivism is not prevented, detterence is questionable, and it is a waste of resources which could be better spent on prevention. I have shown a net benefit if the Death Penalty were abolished. This is my final round of arguments per Con's round 1 requirements, so please allow me to thank the reader and Tejretic's (for a very interesting debate)![15] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [16] http://www.vera.org... [17] http://standdown.typepad.com... [18] http://ejusa.org...[19] https://books.google.com... |
12 | c4c24b85-2019-04-18T17:11:29Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Counter attack Then I use the biggest, strongest shield that will deflect all of the energy from the explosion away from me, so only you die! :) |
45 | c714f34f-2019-04-18T15:58:42Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | My turn: Riddle debate (see inside for description) Very Good! Penny Clock I was going for Goldfish, smile back, but mirror counts too The letter N Finger Nails Shoe Mountain Airconditioner Vote for Lannan! 6/8 |
29 | a6304144-2019-04-18T17:12:32Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Speak gibberish. Me walc down da street wen me homie be like fo show dood. I be like foo da fuq u be doin ta me? And he be say in lik escuse me foo? I show u da worl and u be lik fagers/ Aw naw foo, ima be woopin yo a$$. an he be lik kik me in da nuts, but me like NOPE bish and i go all lik kuungfu karate on dis foo. He go down. Dem cops be all ova mah soon. So fo get dis. I do sum cra-z a$$ s***. Probz ova da wall and arg da dang I be say in. why da worl so cra-z in da nuts man. i wanna liv ma life lik a bose. no lik dis nig. no lik dis. so i be parc owa lik ova da dem wals. o yea to dem foos be lik s***tng me. i say y u do dat to me? y? theres no boobes to be lik dis. i mma k o dem. but nope. dey got dem guns. man, you gotta be kid ing me. r u fo weels? dis jus ima lik F u B****. so i go lik dat one guy be lik o yea cra-z in da nuts. i woop outs my ninja styl. yes to dat me guy an me win fo da winD! yes i accomish, dis story tim is lik o yea. i won da worl with as kik time. yeay i did it. imma weener. i da bom yo. das rite. i da coo foo. i da dope nig. i can go and chop chop dam yall. yall be lik ah naw, imma be poopped. yessum foos i go to da win. den me gey random i be lik wha? no mo fun. no mo fun dis guy gets. sucs to da worl dey no kid, y? y dis so gey, lazr jus bak at me. supa lamo dat is. dis place sucs. i don lik dis mes up worl. it mak s no sens. i wishh tim to be geow in. no mo hug fo u. no hug fo U. cuz imma top da worl eh, im top da worl eh, i wanna be da ver bes, noboedy eva was. so i cood not doit. o well. nex tim, ill be rdy... ill be tim ta gey u bak, ill seeec my venjance. ull be sry dat u worl tacle me in da bak. |
33 | 6b550e4f-2019-04-18T17:11:00Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | We should be vegetarian I accept and I am glad for this opportunity to debate with my opponent. I am not sure if the first round was for acceptance or not, but I will assume that it is, and will thus leave it to my opponent to present his case as various contentions. I await a "formal" (so to speak) round of arguments, eagerly! |
16 | 965182a1-2019-04-18T17:04:26Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be legalized. I'm here to argue for the legalization of all drugs (marijuana, cocaine, crack, etc. ) |
31 | 6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00004-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity Before I turn the floor over to my opponent, I would like to state one statement:If I wanna be fluffy, LET ME BE FLUFFY. |
47 | ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00004-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Not Be Required Thanks Danielle! Observations OBV1: My opponent is affirming a change in the status quo meaning that my role is to defend the status quo. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show why the status quo should be changed and as a result of this they hold the burden of proof. Since my opponent holds the burden of proof here, I will not be providing a constructive case. I will merely be refuting my opponent's case. OBV2: Voters ought to vote pro if, by the end of the debate, they found Pro's case more convincing than mine. Voters ought to vote Con if, by the end of the debate, I have managed to refute my opponent's arguments (and therefore proven that the status quo is better than my opponent's proposed change). Counterplan I will be producing a counterplan upon the resolution. This counterplan will allow me to advance my burden and win the debate but by making a minor alteration to the status quo (and therefore giving me a small share of the BOP to defend it). The Center for Public Education (CPE) produced a balanced report showing both sides to the debate on the necessity of homework. The conclusion that they made was that homework can be bad and get rid of children's motivation when it is given in high quantity. Homework in moderate quantity produces better effects. With this information being considered, I present the following syllogism: P1: Too much homework is negative. P2: Homework in moderate quantity is positive. C1: Homework should be given in moderate quantity. This simple counterplan advances my burden and also improves the system of homework since it negates the arguments regarding stress, loss of motivation, etc. [Rebuttals] Point 1 My opponent's report collected data from 14 - 26 years ago [3]. The system of education in all countries has changed since then [2]. As well as the data being largely outdated it is also very limited, in that it only analyzed 0.00000947368% of children [3][4]. This is extremely low and cannot sufficiently prove that homework is a net detriment when 99.99999163742% of the children are excluded from this study. Furthermore, even the article my opponent cites claims that this isn't a reason to abolish homework - it is merely a reason to change the system [3]. The entire article that my opponent cites next (regarding TIMSS) is contingent on there being heavy homework loads. My counterplan explicitly deals with this issue. In fact the very study my opponent cites states directly after it speaks out the claim that my opponent uses: "The TIMSS can't be used to determine if homework is actually helping or hurting academic performance overall. But it can help us see how much homework students are doing, and what conditions are associated with higher national levels of homework." [5] This conclusively proves that the issue here comes down to homework quantity which is something that is negated already. Point 2 Next my opponent attempts to show that homework places a burden on parents. My opponent fails to explain the impact of this argument which is why it breaks down easily. She states that parents have rebelled and that some parents have gone to court and won. I am confused as to how this advances her burden in this debate. I could easily cite people going to court as proponents of homework and winning. I could easily also show that people have protested as proponents of homework too. It's a controversial issue - of course there will be people for and against it. That doesn't contribute or advance your burden in any way. One example is where a boy and his classmates demanded more homework and the parents agreed [6]. This protest negates my opponent's since this is all they cite to attempt to affirm this point. My opponent's next paragraph of point 2 is once again contingent on quantity. Homework can cut into family time but given that my counterplan specifically reduces the issue of homework in large quantity this point is negated. The same response can be made for the next point regarding the Stanford researcher's findings. The next sub point regarding the "one mother" is extremely minor and is once again refuted by the counterplan. Additionally, only 10% of parents find that their child receives too much homework (on a national level); 64% find that their children's homework is "about the right amount" and 25% believed that their child was not receiving enough homework [7]. This ultimately means that this one scenario that my opponent cites is in the minority and this will be solved under my counterplan regardless. The next reason is precisely why I am introducing the counterplan. I am aware that people may not have the time to dedicate to producing excellent quality homework which is why I introduced the counterplan which (again) refutes the point. My opponent makes the unsourced claim that most of the time parents need to help out their children with homework. I will not be addressing the bare assertion here. If / when my opponent chooses to source this claim I will respond to it. Lastly my opponent claims that it adds an extra burden on to teachers. The fact of the matter is that teachers are paid to mark homework (as well as fulfill their other duties). If homework were to be removed the salaries of teachers would also decline. It is part of the responsibility of a teacher and it is a burden that they accept and are made aware of when they apply for the job. [8] Point 3 My counterplan partially addresses the point regarding too much time being spent however I will expand upon another point I wish to make. My opponent raises the (unsourced) objection of children losing time for activities and rest. Sutton Trust Research concluded that 76% of children of all backgrounds do a range of out of school activities [9]. This shows that an overwhelming majority of people manage to do homework alongside creative and physical activities (and this statistic only refers to out of school activities). Next my opponent talks about a hateful relationship regarding learning being an issue. This article specifically references to the quantity (which my counterplan addresses). In the conclusion it even recommends that homework should be given in smaller quantities as this is ideal and will help them to learn and to have time to do activities that will help to benefit them [10]. My opponent also lists many things that are beneficial such as sports, artwork and playtime. All 3 of these things are taught / applied at most schools [11]. With this information alongside the statistic that 76% of children participate in out of school activities this point is successfully refuted. Point 4 Again, the review my opponent cites in an attempt to prove that homework results in the loss of sleep, self esteem and childhood is refuted by the counterplan as it once again references to excessive homework and homework taking up valuable time from children. Voters should NOT buy my opponent's claim that it encourages cheating and creates a gap between the intelligent and academically struggling because this is once again bare assertion on my opponent's behalf. Afterwards, my opponent quotes Alfie Kohn in an attempt to show that there is a better alternative to homework. The problem is that the proposed change can be done within the status quo, thus making it unnecessary to ban homework. Involving students in decisions about assignments can be done within school and then the assignment can be set once those decisions have been made - this can and does happen [12]. In the final paragraph my opponent quasi-concedes. She says: "As such, we can improve the status quo by asking students the best way to reinforce what they have learned in class. While this might include some work from home, it probably won't look like the standard version of homework that is uniform, repetitive and monotonous." She says that the improvement might involve some work from home. My opponent attempts to distinguish this from homework by saying that homework is uniform, repetitive and monotonous whereas her work from home idea will not be. The fact is that homework is simply defined as: "schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home." [13]. Meaning that my opponent's proposition falls under the definition of homework and is therefore, in essence, a concession. To conclude, my opponent is unable to provide any good reason as to why homework should be banned. At best she manages to show that homework (at its current state) can be slightly excessive and can take away time from students. My counterplan addresses this and even if it didn't, this isn't a valid reason to ban homework, as this issue can be resolved within the status quo. On multiple occasions she fails to provide the impact of her contentions. I have successfully refuted my opponent's points and shown why homework should not remain as a part of the status quo. The resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... [2] https://www.oecd.org... [3] http://research.indiana.edu... [4] http://www.gapminder.org... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] http://www.express.co.uk... [7] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [8] https://www.prospects.ac.uk... [9] https://societycentral.ac.uk... [10] http://www.salon.com... [11] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [12] http://www2.ed.gov... [13] http://tinyurl.com... |
37 | d67b4952-2019-04-18T14:32:14Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. *I will be using the terms "cell-phone" and "mobile phone" interchangeably.* ArgumentsI. Internet AccessSince we are discussing modern mobile phones, I believe a clear advantage right from the start for children owning one is that they will have access to the Internet. If a child is working on a project for school, or merely having a discussion with someone and needs to find information fast, a cell-phone can provide the access to the vast amounts of information needed by the child at that moment. Thus the clear benefit is that cell-phones can help a child obtain answers to questions very quickly and easily, which can help with studies as well as other simple daily questions like daily weather or finding directions to go someplace new. II. Tracking DevicesMany modern cell-phones include GPS or Satellite location technology. When first turning on a majority of newer mobile phones, you are immediately prompted by the phone to allow location tracking. Furthermore, even if such technology isn't turned on, cell-phone towers can still help locate children due to the phone signals relaying off the nearest cell-phone tower. What this means is that cell-phones provide an additional level of security with children by being able to assist in locating the child should he/she ever get lost or abducted. The most important thing is that a parent or guardian can track where their child is to ensure that they are safe and where they are supposed to be at any moment should they install such an app on the phone, and can still benefit from their child having the cell-phone even if such an app isn't installed. III. Staying in TouchI believe a very clear advantage of children owning cell-phones is that it allows the child and parent to stay in touch. Say a child stays after school to work on a project or for a sports event. The child is able to notify the parent and actively keep the parent updated if he/she needs a ride home afterwards. This is important because things like pay-phones are becoming less and less common, or perhaps the school offices are closed by the time the after-school activity ends. With a child owning a cell-phone, there is no need to worry about such things, nor would such things even present an issue. This argument also ties into safety. Should an emergency situation arise, either on the parents end or the child's end, they will be able to actively communicate with one another as needed. The benefit of this is made clearly evident with the recent strings of school shootings that have occurred in America the past couple of years. For instance, the Washington State School shooting that occurred on Oct. 24th, 2014. A dailymail article showcases the benefits of allowing children to own cell-phones during that situation. An excerpt from the article: A crying mother called to report a text from her daughter, but when the operator tried to comfort her by saying police were on the way, it didn't help. 'My daughter is not following lock-down directions and she and other kids have run from their classroom,' the woman said. 'She's away from her classroom right now. What advice can I give her?' [1] What this shows us is that because the daughter had a cell-phone, the mother was able to communicate to her the advice given by the police operator on the other side after the daughter fled the classroom. Without a cell-phone, the mother certainly wouldn't have been able to communicate the advice necessary to best protect and ensure the well-being of her daughter. In fact, she might not had even known that her daughter was alive, which in itself is a degree of parental torment that no-one should have to suffer through. The fact that cell-phones allow children to remain in touch with parents, especially in horrendous scenarios such as the school shooting above, showcases yet another clear advantage of allowing children to own cell-phones. IV. ResponsibilityAnother benefit of allowing children to own cell-phones is that it allows the parents to teach the child about responsibility. They can set guidelines for the child such as texting them at a specific time, or rules about taking care of the phone and not breaking it. The child is responsible for the phone, and as such can learn the importance of caring for an object. This also ties into teaching a child discipline, since if the child abuses or neglects the phone they can have it taken away by the parent as punishment for failing to properly care for it. V. Older childrenFor older children who can already legally drive, a cell-phone can serve as a protective device once more should any kind of road-side emergency arise. For instance, if a child is driving and gets a flat tire, he/she can call either their parents or a local towing company for assistance. Should an accident occur, the child can contact the authorities and emergency services which could very well be the difference between life and death. Thus, it seems like with older children the advantages of owning a cell-phone becomes even more clear, as it serves, yet again, as a device that can help the child when unforeseen situations or emergencies arise. VI. MaturityI find it very unsettling to think that a child between the ages of 16-18, who can legally drive, shouldn't be allowed to use a device like a cell-phone. We'd literally be allowing a child to own and operate a heavy-machine for the purpose of travel, yet wouldn't allow them to own a handheld device that serves a purpose for communication? It just doesn't make sense. If a child is mature enough to legally own and operate a vehicle on highways, surely they have the maturity and capability to own and operate a hand-held device. I believe this is also the biggest flaw of proponents who argue in support of Con's side, there is clearly a vast difference of maturity between "children" when that term encompasses anyone from 5 - 18/19 years old. I do believe that there should be some restrictions for *very young* children, but to argue that a 16-19 year old shouldn't be allowed to own a phone is just absurd. For these reasons, I believe we should allow children to own and use mobile (cell) phones.RebuttalsLong-term health risksThe biggest flaw with Con's reliance on the WHO report of May 2011 is that they merely claim that it's "possibly carcinogenic". So, ultimately, there is no *actual* proof that they *are* carcinogenic. Furthermore, there is no legal or moral grounds to ban the usage of something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when there are multiple things that are proven to be carcinogenic while still being legally usable by children such as chemotherapy, engine exhausts from cars they drive, insecticides and cleaning products - thus there is no ground for us to ban something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when we allow them use of things which are definitely carcinogenic. Pro even concedes that: "It is true there is no total scientific proof about this..." but then relies on the precautionary principle and argues that until science can prove it's completely safe, we shouldn't allow children to use them. This is ridiculous, science hasn't yet to prove that the usage of automobiles are completely safe, and yet we allow children to use them. Unless Con can show that his incredibly high standards placed on science to prove something as completely safe is justifiable, this argument fails to negate the motion. Mobile Phones are too ExpensiveThis is a non-issue if the parents simply buy the phone for them. Con fails to realize that there are such things as "family plans" where the child is bundled into the same payment plan as their parents. He states "a few rich families might be able to afford this", but that is nothing more than an unproven assumption on his part. According to Pew Research, 80% of children aged 14-17 already have cell phones. Even 66% of 11-14 year olds have cell phones. [2] As the image above shows, even families with less than $30,000 in annual earnings has a majority that owns cell-phones. There is no way that banning phones would "reduce the financial strain on poorer families" when that strain isn't mandatory in the first place. No-one is forcing them to go buy a phone, thus it logically follows that a poorer family wouldn't be financially burdened in the first place if they aren't even forced to buy one. Distractions in SchoolsSchools already have measures in place to prevent such distractions from arising, such as rules to turn off the phone or to not have a phone on you. This argument can just as easily be applied to note-passing or windows in classrooms, as both of those also cause distractions. Ultimately, I believe the benefits of having access to a cell-phone in schools for safety purposes far outweigh the potential harms of being distracted in class. This argument also seems to contradict Con's earlier point about how certain nations actively utilize phones for educational purposes in the classrooms. Perhaps what it really comes down to is whether the school takes advantages of the learning oppounities vs. suppressing access to them. I believe the former far outweighs the latter. Open to AbuseI believe my arguments relating to responsibility and discipline counter this argument. There is potential abuse in all things, restricting access to just one thing that can *potentially* be abused removes the opportunity to teach children on the proper use of such things. We can abuse ice-cream as well, and cause serious health risks to ourselves, but if we are taught to eat in moderation, the abuse becomes non-existent. The same applies here, as with anything that can lead to abuse, we have the opportunity and ability to teach children how to responsibility avoid such things, and thus successfully use the cell-phone without abusing it in any way. Sources: [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.howtolearn.com... |
45 | a0424d08-2019-04-18T15:22:20Z-00000-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Murder should stay illegal I'm just going to extend this as she has dropped every one of my points, and she is now trying to refute things that have nothing to do with the debate Murder should be legal mainly because we get rid of it by legalizing it. If we make murder lawful, it cannot be unlawful and murder would not exist because it is required and defined as an unlawful killing. |
13 | 3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | fossil fuel Responding to my opponent: I know that alternatives to fossil fuel exist – the fact that I named most of them in the previous round proves I know of their existence. The problem is that none of them are yet viable as a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity generation or in car locomotion because they are either too expensive, are not capable of being produced on a large enough scale, or are not a reliable/consistent enough form of power. Nuclear power I think my opponent means nuclear fission. Fission is a reaction that breaks apart an atom (usually Uranium-235) to generate energy. Fusion is the process the sun uses of fusing together protons to generate energy. Scientists have yet to produce a commercially viable fusion power plant, and many people still consider fusion power a pipe dream. Nuclear power, in contrast, is not a good fossil fuel replacement. The Huffington Post reports that nuclear power plants, even when operated correctly, cause cancer. "Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. . . . after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer." [1] The Huffington post cites a number of studies proving the link between nuclear power and cancer: "Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near [nuclear power plants]. One study showed child cancer exceeded the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern U.S. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown . . . A November 2007 article on U.S. child leukemia deaths updated the 1990 National Cancer Institute study and showed local rates rose as nuclear plants aged -- except near plants that shut down." [2] Studies in Germany have also proved the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. [3] The fear of cancer sparks a "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) attitude towards nuclear power plants, whereby locals and politicians protest the location of nuclear power plants near their homes, thereby making it impossible to build nuclear power plants anywhere. If countries all decided to pursue nuclear power, it would take well over a hundred years to build all the power plants. There is only one steel plant in the world, Japan Steel, that has a forge big enough to make the containment vessel for nuclear power plants. They are only capable of forging 5 such containment vessels per year. [4] The Star continues that the waiting list is filled up until at least 2018, even though demand for nuclear power is relatively low right now. Building enough nuclear power plants is infeasible. Other arguments against nuclear include: it is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The Post-Gazette reports that "A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW) . . . A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build." [5] Nuclear power reliance worldwide would create a spent fuel storage problem – where does all the radioactive waste go? Nevada has been unwilling to allow the U.S. to store the waste at the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, nuclear is non-renewable: uranium sources will run out. And lastly, a global trade in uranium/plutonium makes it easier for a terrorist to get their hands on one of these substances. Nuclear power as a replacement source is negated. Geothermal: The Energy Information Agency explains that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers, most of which are located on the west coast of the Americas and the east coast of Asia. [6] These energy sources are not widely available, which is why geothermal has the potential to provide far less than 1% of the world's power. Geothermal as a fossil fuel replacement is negated. Solar/wind: My opponent does not answer my analysis that these are intermittent power sources with no way to store their energy. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we must get our power from coal or natural gas. Studies show that wind power in particular does not replace fossil fuel power because electric utility companies are forced to keep natural gas power plants readily available in case the wind is not blowing and since power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, the natural gas plants are constantly on. In addition, my opponent does not answer the evidence from the Energy Information Agency that in the best case scenario, the United States could only generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. In addition, wind and solar plants are very expensive because they need to built in specific locations (where wind blows or where cloud cover is rare) and necessitate new power grids to be built. Power grids typically cost $3 million per mile to build. In addition, the further the power plants are located away from the houses that need them, the more energy that will be lost due to "line loss." The friction caused by electrons moving through the wires causes lost electricity due to heat. This is another of the many challenges facing solar/wind. Wind has further challenges. The annoying noise from the rotor blades and the blinking lights to warn airplanes/helicopters of their presence decrease property values near wind farms. According to Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, "Large wind turbines in concert with each other, especially those sited on ridgetops with side slopes shaped like a parabolic reflector, create profound, relentless noise reverberations extending out for more than a mile, sounding like "a boot tumbling in a dryer" or the revving of jet engines on a runway." [7]. Wind farms thus generate the same NIMBY attitude that nuclear power plants generate. For all of the above reasons, solar and wind power are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. If we like to have electricity and to drive our cars, fossil fuels are the only option for the foreseeable future. UV light: As someone who is extremely fair skinned, the lives of Australians sound extremely similar to my own. I cannot leave the house without sunscreen and protective coverings or else I will develop a sunburn within a matter of 15-20 minutes of sun exposure. Even ozone-shielded UV radiation can be highly damaging, and doctors recommend that even dark-skinned individuals wear sunscreen. In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that the particular ozone hole he is talking about over Australia is widely acknowledged as being caused by the emission of CFC's, not of fossil fuels. Lastly, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated worldwide by fossil fuels and related industries, and the fact that fossil fuel-exporting dependent countries would have their economies collapse without fossil fuels, causing a massive drop in global demand for good and services, sinking all countries further into the global recession. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] Ibid [3] http://www.currentconcerns.ch... [4] http://www.thestar.com... [5] http://www.post-gazette.com... [6] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [7] http://www.wvmcre.org... |
45 | 1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. "It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. "I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. "In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. " "My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. " Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, "If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. " Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a "symbolic of nationhood and identity,"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to "function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. "[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. "If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the "ULTIMATE" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. "Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. "This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). " >"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make "giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. " However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. "If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. "Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that "$7.02 as $6.98" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com... |
19 | 6335cb84-2019-04-18T12:35:52Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legal. |
34 | 5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00000-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking Sites are Harmful Well, Arguments extended. .. I thank PRO for this debate. .. very interesting for the time that it lasted. |
32 | 93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00004-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Online voting should replace traditional voting. Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you! |
16 | b06b713c-2019-04-18T11:42:34Z-00000-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Their is no difference to the teletubbies and rick and morty My opponent ignores the fact that the sun has visible teeth while the pictures of babies do not. My opponent also posts pictures of mature looking babies, but none of them look like the sun in the picture. My Opponent also states that the Teletubbies have a car which is like a portal gun. This however does not matter. My opponents claim was that there is no difference between Rick and Morty and Teletubbies. Because a portal gun is not a car, your claim is false, and argument invalid. Pleasure debating with you. |
48 | a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lowering the voting age Hi everyone. It' s very nice to see you guys again. Well, Jane I am enjoying this debate too. Before going to my arguments, I would like to answer the question that Jane ask to me. 1.Yes I think so. As many people said our children such as high students or universities, are becoming smarter and smarter. Of course 50 years old business man keep more experience than 18years old students but I don't think that experience and voting has no relationship. 2.Sorry, Jane I remember that I didn't said that over 18 is a adults.:) 3.Even though they didn't experience, I heard in school, teacher tell them how to choose good president for our county. Plus, they have voting a president is their classroom, right? And they can experience many times to choose good president of Korea. Well, now I'm going to move to my arguments. Well, I'm going to give you guys a example of Americans just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. According to the IRS, teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention many millions of taxes on income. "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn." Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation. In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. According to a study conducted by Dr. Frank Smearing of the University of Chicago, he found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court," and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes." What kind of message do we send when we tell youth they are judged as mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the fair and correct way to set things straight. Thirdly, today¢&;ç&castle;s politicians represent various constituencies. As of today, young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Politicians have no motivation whatsoever. Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people. The words spoken before the Senate Judicatory Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them [the youth] from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." In conclusion, every person in the United States is born with the individual responsibility to be active in the political process. Without allowing youth to vote, we can¢&;ç&castle;t expect teenagers to care for the political process. Thank you.. |
29 | 4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00027-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Path to citizenship respects dignity of the undocumented |
37 | 9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours. Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma. |
29 | 12d674bb-2019-04-18T17:04:06Z-00003-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | US/Mexican Boarder must be closed The United States/Mexican boarder needs to be more secure. For the entire country of the United States, almost a third of our population are illegal immigrants. About 66% of all those immigrants are from mexico. The average american family actually funds these illegal immigrants. The state of California pays over 21 BILLION dollars (taxpayer money) to support these families. I really think that we need to start cracking down of these immigrants. |
33 | cce0600f-2019-04-18T12:58:53Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Round two main argumentOutlineI. IntroII. Animal suffering ethicsIII. EnvironmentIV. HealthV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroThere are three main points to my argument, animal suffering & ethics, environment issues, and health concerns. As a responsible adult and productive member of society I feel it is necessary to take care of one's health, the environment, and to show compassion towards animals.II. Animal suffering ethicsFirst and foremost is animal suffering and ethics. Claim 0: There is no survival need to eat animal products.Warrant 0: "Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made. Their health status appears to be at least as good as other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians."[0] Impact: Any suffering via the raising, transportation, and breeding of livestock can be seen as animal cruelty. Vegan is the morally superior path.Claim 1: Animals suffer greatly during factory farming.Warrant 1: Common knowledge. Impact 1: When combined with the fact that we don't need to eat meat to survive and the abundance of wealth in 1st world countries, factory farming has no relevant difference than dog fighting, pig wrestling, pigeon shooting, and cock fighting. We are simply eating meat for pleasure at the cost of great suffering and pain to animals. This is animal cruelty. Halt a large portion of animal cruelty by becoming vegan. Claim 2: Humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans.Warrant 2: Richard Dawkins a famous person known for his intellect says so. [1]Impact 2: This is a cruel double standard. Such a double standard is an injustice. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." [2] Martin Luther King, Jr. As long as such an injustice is allowed to stand, a threat to justice everywhere remains. Become vegan today to help remedy this injustice.Claim 3: Cage-free, free range, pasture raised, and their variants are a form of humane washing.Warrant: "the movement to treat farm animals better is based on the idea that it is wrong to subject them to unnecessary harm; yet, killing animals we have no need to eat constitutes the ultimate act of unnecessary harm." [3]Impact 3: While factory farming is common knowledge humane washing is not. Not only does humane washing have the injustice of animal cruelty but of deliberate deceit to the public. Adults in 1st world countries should become vegan thus boycotting such products. III. EnvironmentIf you paid attention in elementary level science class you learned about the food chain, autotrophs, heterotrophs, and tropic levels. That each trophic level requires significantly higher amount of biomass and thus energy. Therefore, it is logical to eat at a lower level in the food chain, plants instead of animals. Cows require up to sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. Then, there is destructive fishing habits, rain forest deforestation to clear land for cows, and so forth. IV. Health I think it is immoral to carelessly destroy your health and leech off of the various forms of welfare and public assistance. Ideally a person should repay his or her society and become an industrious citizen. There are many health benefits from becoming vegan with little health concerns. The benefits including receiving plenty of the good while avoiding the bad. The good being antioxidants, fiber and phytonutrients. The bad being excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, heterocyclic amines, endotoxins, and IGF-1. V. ConclusionThe first world is plagued by immoral and morbidly obese humans leeching off not only their own nations but destroying the environment for everyone. We can no longer afford to allow these evil humans to desecrate our morals and future. They will hide behind their religions and selfish ideologies, nevertheless we cannot afford to be infinitely patient. For justice, the environment, and your health become vegan today. All adults in first world countries barring a few exception should become vegan as soon as possible. Thank you for reading and thank you for the debate. VI. Sources0. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...1. https://richarddawkins.net...2. https://www.brainyquote.com... 3. http://freefromharm.org... |
44 | fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less |
4 | 7ce82ca6-2019-04-18T15:40:03Z-00007-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment I will now lay out my case, but after I briefly discuss the resolution and burdens in this debate. THE RESOLUTIONLet's break down the resolution before getting in to my arguments. The phrase "on balance" implies that the winner should be determined after a preponderance of the evidence. If we imagined the debate as a scale, and our arguments as weights, whichever side has more weight is the side deserving of the vote. However, since Pro has 100% of the burden of proof, as per Rule number 1, if the scale is roughly even at the end of the debate, you must vote Con. The fact that Pro has the BOP means that, in non-metaphorical terms, if Pro hasn't proven her case, even if you don't think I proved mine, you still have to vote Con. Finally, there is a specific way the benefits of corporal punishment should be assess. The resolution is not talking about benefits to society, to parents, to schoolteachers, etc. , but rather it is specifically talking about benefits "for the child. " Only benefits that impact back to the child are relevant, and only these arguments weigh on our hypothetical scale. The resolution also does not specify any specific type of corporal punishment that Pro must defend, therefore, to defend only certain types of corporal punishment would fail to defend the full scope of the ground Pro needs to cover. While I don't expect Pro to defend clear instances of abuse, Pro must still defend those acts which may to some seem abusive, but which to other, reasonable people, do not. With these understandings in mind, we can move on to my arguments. MY ARGUMENTSIn a meta-analysis of 88 studies, covering 62 years of data, psychologist Elizabeth T. Gershoff, PhD, "looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse). " [1] Her analysis found that there were strong links between all of these 11 points and corporal punishment, and that "[t]en of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child. " [1] Gershoff found an especially strong link between the use of corporal punishment and parental abuse of the child. She cautioned that this evidenced a strong risk that corporal punishment could easily and "by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment. " [1]Gershoff cites a growing body of data surrounding corporal punishment which notes that, "[f]or one, corporal punishment on its own does not teach children right from wrong. Secondly, although it makes children afraid to disobey when parents are present, when parents are not present to administer the punishment those same children will misbehave. In commentary published along with the Gershoff study, George W. Holden, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, writes that Gershoff's findings 'reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm. '" [1]In a separate study, involving some 2,500 children, researchers found that "who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were much more likely to be aggressive by age 5. " [2] This study was the first of its kind "to control for a host of issues affecting the mother, such as depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether she considered abortion while pregnant with the child. " [2] Even after controlling for these variables, as well as for natural aggression in the children, the study found a 50% greater likelihood of aggression by age 5 in children who were spanked more frequently. [2] My sources posits that "the reason for this may be that spanking sets up a loop of bad behavior. Corporal punishment instills fear rather than understanding. Even if children stop tantrums when spanked, that doesn't mean they get why they shouldn't have been acting up in the first place. What's more, spanking sets a bad example, teaching children that aggressive behavior is a solution to their parents' problems. " [2] "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not endorse spanking under any circumstance. It's a form of punishment that becomes less effective with repeated use, according to the AAP; it also makes discipline more difficult as the child outgrows it. " [2]Another piece of research observes a similar effect as the first two I've quoted. "Based on interviews with the mothers of about 3,000 children, researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire found that corporal punishment is counterproductive, resulting in more antisocial behavior by children in later years. Parents may not see this 'boomerang' effect because it happens over weeks or months. " [3] "Researchers analyzed survey data from 807 mothers of children ages 6 to 9. .. They compared levels of antisocial behavior among spanked and unspanked children over that interval. The more spanking a child received at the beginning of the study, the higher level of antisocial behavior at the end, according to the researchers. The study found that the higher levels of antisocial behavior were independent of other traits that could affect that behavior, such as a family's socioeconomic status and the amount of support parents give their children. " [3]"There is also MRI evidence that children treated with harsh corporal punishment have reduced gray matter when aged 18–25 in their prefrontal lobe. Such research also found that these reductions in gray matter linked to reduced performance IQ. " [4]UNICEF notes that, regarding children, "[corporal punishment] lowers their self-esteem, teaching them poor self-control and promoting negative expectations of themselves. It teaches them to be victims. There is a broadly held belief that people who are submitted to corporal punishment are made stronger by it; it 'prepares them for life. ' Today we know that corporal punishment doesn't make people stronger; rather it makes them more prone to becoming repeat victims. It interferes with the learning process and with their intellectual, sensory and emotional development. It discourages the use of reasoning. By precluding dialogue and reflection, it hampers the capacity to understand the relationship between behavior and its consequences. It makes children feel lonely, sad and abandoned. It promotes a negative view of other people and of society as a threatening place. It creates barriers that impede parent-child communication and damages the emotional links established between them. It stimulates anger and a desire to run away from home. Violence begets violence. It teaches that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. Children who have been submitted to corporal punishment may manifest difficulties with social integration. It doesn't teach children to cooperate with authority; it teaches them to comply with the rules or to infringe them. Children can suffer from accidental physical injuries. When someone hits a child, the situation can get out of hand and result in more harm than expected. " [5]Even more studies report similar findings regarding corporal punishment. The National Association of Social Workers conducted research that found "a link between physical punishment and several negative developmental outcomes for children: physical injury, increased aggression, antisocial behavior, poorer adult adjustment, and greater tolerance of violence. " [6] Other researchers have discovered that "the 25 percent of university students who ranked highest on a corporal punishment scale insisted on sex without a condom, compared with the 12.5 percent of university students who scored lowest on the scale. Another: 75 percent of college students who'd been spanked a lot said they were sexually aroused by masochistic sex, compared with 40 percent of students who were never spanked. " [7]So, to sum all of this up, I will quotes the APSA, which writes, "Spanking is a euphemism for hitting. One is not permitted to hit one's spouse or a stranger; such actions are defined as the crime of assault. Nor should one be permitted to hit a small and more vulnerable child. Hitting a child elicits precisely the feelings one does not want to generate in a child: distress, anger, fear, shame, and disgust. " [8] Thus, I can only conclude that corporal punishment is indeed not beneficial for the child, and must urge a ballot in negation of today's resolution. Thank you, and thanks to Garbanza. I hand over the floor to Pro. .. SOURCES1 - . http://www.apa.org...2 - . http://content.time.com...3 - . http://www.cnn.com...4 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . http://www.unicef.org... 6 - . http://babyresearch.blogspot.com...7 - . http://www.newsweek.com...8 - . http://www.apsa.org... |
35 | a4146d25-2019-04-18T16:33:25Z-00003-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games Incase you didn't see the big "PRO" sign sticking out there, I'm all for video games. If you have a friend who is anti-video games, please let him use your computer because I'm in the mood for a legit debate here. |
23 | 668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00000-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. I would like to reinforce my statements that for a doctor to kill someone or help them kill themselves, they must go against ethical guidelines, killing someone is never in their best interest, and that a desire to commit suicide is a sign of mental illness. Assisted Suicide is immoral, unethical, and should remain illegal. |
47 | ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00005-000 | Is homework beneficial? | This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity It's basically forcing students to go home after a stressful day of school and activities and do pointless homework. Teachers should be teaching these things in class, not making the students learn it themselves. It's preventing children from leading balanced lifestyles, with a healthy amount of sleep and activities to keep them fit and active. How is a student supposed to do 3 to 4 hours of homework, study for a plethora of tests and quizzes, play sports, get involved in the community, eat food with nutritional value, and get an adequate amount of sleep, all in one day? That's not possible. The amount of stress homework causes kids is ridiculous, especially when they're already under so much pressure to get into a good college and do well in school, along with making friends and staying active. Homework is not necessary. Homework is pointless because kids do enough work in school and they don't need more. When they come home they want to chill out, hang out with friends, or do something. Kids are in school for 8 hours a day doing work, other than lunch and recess. Homework is not relevant for kids. I did a survey at school at resource, and a majority of kids say that homework should be banned in school because it is stressful and they procrastinate until the last second. There is no point in homework. It takes away from spending time with family. According to the text with research 'Homework Should be Banned,' "Schools has increased from 9 to 3 with 1 " hour of recess and lunch to 8:40 to 3:15 with only 30 minutes of lunch and recess." This quote shows that too much is just too much homework. Also, another reason is that, according to research, some of the smartest countries like Finland and Japan don"t have homework. We can be just as smart as them without homework. This shows that homework has no academic benefits for grades. As a student, I don't get home from school until 4:30 or 5:00 and I am doing homework sometimes until 8:30 almost every night. It is very stressful when you have seven classes a day and homework in every single class; it becomes very overwhelming. On top of that, I have to get up every morning at 5:30 am just to catch my buss at 6:40. Many mornings are very hard for me because of lack of sleep from the night before staying up doing homework and studying for two or three tests the next day. If they banned homework, test scores might improve because then students would have more time to study and be prepared than if we have five different subjects to do on top of studying for a test the next day. Homework should NOT be assigned in schools. It is just a waste of time and is just too much. One reason why homework should be banned is because homework is just too much. Schools have been increased so there is no point into giving homework. According to the text with research Homework Should be Banned, "Schools has increased from 9 to 3 with 1 " hour of recess and lunch to 8:40 to 3:15 with only 30 minutes of lunch and recess." This quote shows that too much is just too much. Students should not cry because of homework. School has been expanded. Have you ever wonder why lunch has been a little shorter than in 1st grade? To include to that too much homework is bad for you. As they say "Too much of something is not good for you". Second of all, homework just makes kids hate school even more. According to the text Homework should be eliminated, it says "Excessive or pointless homework turns children away from the joy of learning." Homework is the only word kid"s fear. This quote shows that homework should be fun; it should not be a torture. Every time in school, at the beginning of the year, you"ll hear "Have fun". Students cannot have fun when homework is torturing kids. Like Jia Ming said, it is no help. Learning needs to be a positive experience learn with a smile and you can walk an extra mile. Another reason why homework should be banned is because it is evil. According to the text Homework should be Eliminated, "When students have hours of homework, they don"t get enough sleep, sunlight, and exercise." This shows that too much homework can cause be things to happen. You don"t spend time with your family, your backpacks become really heavy, and this explains why kids are obese. Kids spend so much time doing there homework they don"t have time to even go to sleep. These things can cause a lot of pressure and stress in high school. Also another reason is that according to research some of the smartest country like Finland and Japan don"t have homework. We can be just as smart as or smarter than them without homework. This shows that homework have no academic achievements towards grades. This is why kids should not repeat not have homework. Finally homework is just too overwhelming. After school, you either have to do chores or go to after school activities. According to the article "Homework Should Be Banned", it says that "homework should vanish because sometimes when you have homework, you have other activities to do such as music lessons, or an after school job". Homework is just too big. When you have a lot of after school activities you end up doing it at the last second. To prove it I sometimes see many kids doing homework during breakfast hmm"Felix...Too much homework can cause stress and give kids a bad grade instead of helping. Inundating children with hours of homework each night is detrimental, the research suggests, while an hour or two per week usually doesn't impact test scores one way or the other. However, homework only bolsters students' academic performance during their last three years of grade school. "There is little benefit for most students until senior high school (grades 10-12)," Walker told Life's Little Mysteries. The same basic finding holds true across the globe, including in the U.S., according to Gerald LeTendre of Pennsylvania State University. He and his colleagues have found that teachers typically give take-home assignments that are unhelpful busy work. Assigning homework "appeared to be a remedial strategy (a consequence of not covering topics in class, exercises for students struggling, a way to supplement poor quality educational settings), and not an advancement strategy (work designed to accelerate, improve or get students to excel)," LeTendre wrote in an email. This type of remedial homework tends to produce marginally lower test scores compared with children who are not given the work. Even the helpful, advancing kind of assignments ought to be limited; Harris Cooper, a professor of education at Duke University, has recommended that students be given no more than 10 to 15 minutes of homework per night in second grade, with an increase of no more than 10 to 15 minutes in each successive year. Most homework's neutral or negative impact on students' academic performance implies there are better ways for them to spend their after school hours than completing worksheets. So, what should they be doing? According to LeTendre, learning to play a musical instrument orparticipating in clubs and sports all seem beneficial, but there's no one answer that applies to everyone. "These after-school activities have much more diffuse goals than single subject test scores," he wrote. "When I talk to parents " they want their kids to be well-rounded, creative, happy individuals " not just kids who ace the tests." That is why Homework is Futile! |
32 | 2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00011-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are 'too busy'[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 |
19 | c27d9933-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Should gay marriage be legal I'm not saying it because its my realign I'm say it because I don't like it and I don't like gays people can be gay if they want to its their diction its a free country just not around me |
3 | 8b740540-2019-04-18T16:21:02Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Guns should be allowed In the 2nd amendment says "right to bear arms". Why would anyone take away something our founding fathers wanted? |
48 | ab1cb41f-2019-04-18T20:02:53Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19. First of all, if the feds stopped extorting the states to have a drinking age of 21, each state would still have a drinking age of 21. They are state laws, after all. Why would taking away the federal government's blackmail operation result in "years of litigation, controversy and countless man hours debating the subject"? That's absurd. States had their own drinking ages before 1988, and they could easily do so again. You support the despotic means by which the federal government has set the drinking age at 21, but you just want them to set it lower. How do YOU know what the right age is? Couldn't the "right" age be different in different states? Why not have a world government that makes all laws right on down to the township level. It would save countless "man hours" but also result in horrible laws that were not appropriate for given communities. Your example of "spillover" is silly. Michigan is on the border with Canada. Teens can and do go to Canada where the drinking age is 19. So what? Furthermore, as the federal government does have the ability to regulate interstate commerce, it could make a law making it illegal to sell alcohol to out-of-state customers who were under 21, or in your world, 19. Problem solved! Drunk driving is a crime. Criminals should be punished and held accountable. This is not Minority Report -- you cannot punish people before they've committed any crime. I say increase the penalties for drunk-driving-related accidents. That's not the subject of the debate. The debate is, SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET A SINGLE DRINKING AGE OF 19, and I say NO, it should not. States should determine their own drinking ages, and I would want MY state to set the age at 18. You are correct to say that we are not debating the Patriot Act here. But we are debating whether the federal government should continue to exercise greater power than the founders intended, or if it should be scaled back. Why make a reform that leaves the power in check? Next, they could up the drinking age to 25 or 35 or 95. A state could not do this because its citizens would revolt and move to the next state, leaving behind only the "drys." I think people who are 18 should be able to buy alcohol. But the law should be determined at the state level (or lower), not by the federal government, who does NOT have the constitutional jurisdiction. |
32 | c1e7a464-2019-04-18T17:50:55Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Super pacs harm the election process. In order to be fair i will refrain from posting a rebutall this round. Before I start I would like to offer one sole observation: 1) As noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge the three pillars of any electoral process are voter participation, informed citizens and transparency. Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout. According to "the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia "respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads". Furthermore, according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University "Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process. Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions According to political scientist David Downing "without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission "many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizen united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage. Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency According to the center for political accountability 85% of company"s increased their disclosure over the last election cycle and there has been an 11% overall increase in disclosure rates. David Weigel a correspondent for the Washington post supports this consensus and notes "there's more information out there about super PAC donors than there is about virtually any other kind of campaign fundraising. The impact of this increased transparency is twofold: sub point a) Transparency reduces political corruption, as noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge "Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption". This corruption is devastating to the democratic process as noted social advocate John Samuel states "The subversion, misuse and abuse of power tends to undermine the process and content of the democratic process" sub point b) Transparency allows voters to maintain confidence in our democratic system according to John Wonderlich of the sunlight foundation "Public knowledge of the money flowing into our politics is absolutely fundamental to public accountability in campaigns and elections, [because] without it we can"t properly" maintain confidence in our democratic system". Voter confidence is essential because as Lonna Atkeson of the University of New Mexico notes "If voters do not have faith in this most fundamental aspect of a democratic society " then the legitimacy of representative government might be at risk" and If we can"t even trust are representatives then we have completely undermined the entire purpose of the election process. Thus for all the aforementioned reasons I urge a con ballot. Sources: http://blog.heritage.org... http://www.slate.com... https://docs.google.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.bowdoin.edu... http://jurist.org... http://aceproject.org... http://news.yahoo.com... http://infochangeindia.org... http://sunlightfoundation.com... http://aceproject.org... http://aceproject.org... |
35 | 3e67d226-2019-04-18T17:47:14Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings. Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ''Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime''. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI's nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ''Crime and Criminals''. He writes, ''If Bok's right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?''. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. "Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime." N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. "WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business." WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale! |
31 | b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00000-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a disease. Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice. |
32 | 790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00002-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Thanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is "democratic". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is "good" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most "democratic" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means "all" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority "somewhat" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions ("extremists") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are "unrepresented" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks "[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal ("Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... |
7 | 5bf8c145-2019-04-18T11:35:27Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Only the educated should be allowed to vote. well this should apply to you as you're clearly a trump supporter. you're the reason the world is about to be blown up, we should have voted for Bernie. I win the debate |
32 | bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00024-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Would complicate elections Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., 'The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting', University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3 |
28 | 52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00003-000 | 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 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." |
8 | b38c2a52-2019-04-18T14:11:17Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Legal Abortion No, I was using my Turn to better understand your argument... But, the debate is not "is criminalizing abortion dictatorial?" The debate is "should abortion be legal?" If you have already agreed with me that abortion is murder, then how can you argue that abortion should be legal? Are you suggesting we make murder legal? And if you are worried that by criminalizing abortion would create a dictatorship then shouldn't we legalize all forms of drugs? Because by not accepting that act is another form of what you called "normalization" as a matter of fact, every law would be "not accepting the queer" in one way or another... Where do we draw the line? Or do you suggest we go to an anarchy |
28 | 58074c52-2019-04-18T17:05:22Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States Contention 1: Legalizing expands the sex market. Because of the legalization of prostitution, the sex market in the region will grow. The Netherlands proves. "Over the last decade, as pimping was legalized, and brothels decriminalized in the year 2000, the sex industry increased by 25% in the Netherlands." [1] Sub-point 1a: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking. Because of an increase in the demand of prostitutes with the expansion of a sex market, sex trafficking will increase, as the Netherlands shows. "Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking...one report found that 80% of women in the brothels of the Netherlands were trafficked from other countries." [2] The expansion of human trafficking leads to problems to those involved therein. "A 2006 quantitative study...documented the physical, sexual and mental health symptoms experienced by women trafficked for sexual exploitation (10). In this multi-site survey of approximately 200 women, the majority reported high levels of physical or sexual abuse before (59%) and during (95%) their exploitation, and multiple concurrent physical and mental health problems immediately after their trafficking experience (10). The most commonly reported physical health symptoms included fatigue, headaches, sexual and reproductive health problems (e.g. STIs), back pain and significant weight loss." [3] "Women who have been trafficked into the sex trade may often not have access to, or are not allowed to use, condoms or other methods of birth control... Such women face the risk of unwanted pregnancies and miscarriages...This type of physical and sexual abuse described above leads to severe mental or emotional health consequences, including feelings of severe guilt, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and eating disorders. In extreme cases, the mental anguish can lead to self-mutilation and/or suicide." [4] Sub-point 1b: Legalizing has the problems of illegal prostitution, child prostitution. Under a system of legalized prostitution, prostitutes would need to enter into a registry, something that creates problems as pimps find ways to bypass that system and expand street prostitution. "…many women are in street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps (transformed in legalized systems into sex businessmen). Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is legalized. Thus, legalization may actually drive some women into street prostitution… In the Netherlands...because they must register and lose their anonymity, women are more vulnerable to being stigmatized as "whores,"... Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still operate illegally and underground…Another argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that it would help end child prostitution. Yet child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number of children in prostitution has increased by more than 300% between 1996 –2001, going from 4,000 children in 1996 to15,000 in 2001." [5] Contention 2: Legalizing prostitution doesn't solve the problems faced in prostitution. The legalization of prostitution fails to solve any of the problems women face in prostitution. Sub-point 2a: Legalization of prostitution doesn't decrease sexual assault. "It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution…In the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, 60% of prostituted women suffered physical assaults; 70% experienced verbal threats of physical assault; 40% experienced sexual violence; and 40% had been forced into prostitution or sexual abuse by acquaintances. Most young women in prostitution were abused or beaten by johns as well as pimps." [6] "In two studies in which 186 victims of commercial sexual exploitation were interviewed, women consistently indicated that prostitution establishments did little to protect them, regardless of whether the establishments were legal or illegal. One woman said, "The only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers." [7] Sub-point 2b: Legalization of prostitution does not decrease the risk of health concerns. The problem of transmission of STDs remains a problem under legalization. "A legalized system of prostitution often mandates health checks and certification, but only for women and not for male buyers. Health examinations or tests for women but not men make no public health sense because monitoring prostituted women does not protect them from HIV/AIDS or STDs... Male buyers can and do originally transmit disease to the women they purchase... In one study, 47% of women in U.S. prostitution stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; and 45% of women said that men became abusive if they insisted that men use condoms. Although certain sex businesses had rules that required men to wear condoms, men nonetheless attempted to have sex without condoms. One woman stated: "It's 'regulation' to wear a condom at the sauna, but negotiable between parties on the side. Most guys expected blow jobs without a condom (Raymond et al, 2001, p. 72)."" [8] "A UN/AIDS and WHO campaign in Thailand began in the late 1980s to ensure 100% condom use. According to women in prostitution, under this policy they suffered the same social contempt as always but with additional coercive tactics such as being taken to clinics for health checks under police or military escort. The campaign humiliated women by posting their photographs in brothels so that johns could inform pimps which of the women had agreed to have sex without a condom. Johns' culpability for their own failure to use condoms was ignored." [9] This is not to mention the problems of mental health for those involved in prostitution, mainly PTSD. " Aosved and Long (2003), for example, found that women who experience rape resulting from coercive tactics such as abuse of authority, arguments, or social pressure experience the same high levels of depression and PTSD as women who have been raped as a result of force and threat of force...PTSD is characterized by anxiety, depression, insomnia, irritability, flashbacks, emotional numbing, and hyperalertness. Symptoms are more severe and long lasting when the stressor is of human design. PTSD is normative among prostituted women. Farley et al. (2003) found a PTSD prevalence rate of 68% among those in prostitution in nine countries. Illustrating a severe symptom of PTSD, one prostitution survivor said, "For the first few months I worked [in prostitution] I had a lot of nightmares involving mass numbers of penises". " [10] Contention 3: Legalization of prostitution hurts women's human rights. Prostitution violates human rights. Sub-point 3a: Legalization of prostitution increases discrimination of women. "There is a stark contrast between countries with legalized prostitution and criminalized prostitution in terms of the promotion of gender rights... the abuse of women has become so entwined in Thailand that it makes up 4.3 billion dollars per year."' The sale and abuse of women's bodies that contributes to the maintenance of the Thai government and society for the benefit of men can be described as nothing but exploitation... The result of the situation in Thailand is indicated by the CEDAW Committee's Concluding Observations, namely the concern "[t]hat traditional attitudes that foster discrimination against women and girls continue to prevail and to hinder the full implementation of the Convention.""* Rather than tackling the serious problem of discrimination against women in Thai society, the government compounds the problem by condoning the sale of women as objects for the use of men,... When women are commodities, they need be treated no better than other marketed products..." [11] "Prostitution is not about women enjoying rights over their own bodies. On the contrary, it is an expression of men's control over women's sexuality. It is the hiring out of one's body for the purposes of sexual intercourse, abuse, and manifestations of undifferentiated male lust." [12] Sub-point 3b: Other conditions constitute that prostitution is a human rights violation. "The European Court of Human Rights has established that filthy conditions, water shortages, skin infections, and sleep deprivation can constitute torture when the suffering is intense... In places where prostitution is legalized, the state not only ignores the conditions, it legitimizes them. Therefore, States must be held accountable under ECtHR for their failure to eradicate torture." [13] References provided in comment section. |
27 | ea8c1293-2019-04-18T11:41:07Z-00000-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny." Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round. |
49 | 289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Should all cops have to wear body cameras No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again. |
6 | 472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00005-000 | Is a college education worth it? | A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that "...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt " and maybe no job in sight". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations. |
6 | 5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Free college education My opponent has failed to provide evidence to back up his claim, I have. |
50 | aad1c75f-2019-04-18T19:33:31Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators ==== "Superior education" My opponent asserts that he is more of an expert on this subject than I am. He claims to have pretty much the same qualifications as the people conducting the studies I linked. That's great, if it' indeed true. However, my opponent's claims are completely irrelevant. No matter his qualifications, he is still required, like anyone else, to back up his assertions. Not only that, but this is the internet. No one knows whether my opponent is really the Lead Biomedical Technician at St. Joseph's Hospital's Biomedical Engineering Department, or if he is just lying to us to make himself seem more credible. Like a suspect on the witness stand, we have to take his claims with a grain of salt. ==== "First study used ICD's" I concede this point. It's irrelevant anyway, since the first study I linked was inconclusive. ==== RE: ""However, most defibrillators that can deliver a biphasic waveform already contain the switches and other hardware necessary for delivery of a triphasic waveform. Therefore, slight alteration of the software in the defibrillator to switch the waveform a second time to deliver the third phase is the main change required for delivery of a triphasic shock." This is obviously in reference to ICD's using 300 micro farad capacitors, and no other types of defibrillators because they were not tested." My opponent is mistaken here. While the study used 300-�f triphasics, the quote was not talking specifically about the defibrillaters they used. In fact, the writers specify they are talking about "Most defibrillators." Most defibrillators were not part of their study, but the possible conversion of biphasics to triphasics was not a conclusion of the study, it was a simply a relevant fact stated in the study. The only logical conclusion is that it was truly referring to 'most defibrillators,' without the imaginary 300-�f qualifier my opponent wishes they used. ==== "Second study" The only point of the second study was for me to show that triphasics were indeed statistically significantly better than biphasics, something the first study failed to show. My opponent is not arguing against this fact, so it seems he agrees that triphasics are indeed superior. My opponent had, in round 3, claimed that this study used internal defibrillation, but he has abandoned that claim. Of course, he is now claiming that the results, while valid, might not be the same in humans. He claims that 'there is no telling what the comparison between triphasic and biphasic would be for humans.' Nonsense. The reason the study used pigs in the first place is that they are similar enough that we could at least get a good idea of the differences between triphasic and biphasic for humans. While the results might not be exactly the same for humans, there is nothing suggesting triphasics are inferior to biphasics, and there are studies indicating a superiority of triphasics to biphasics. The only logical conclusion is that triphasics would be superior in humans as well, just as they are when used in ICD's, as my opponent has pointed out. ==== "Commercial availablility" If biphasics can be converted to triphasics easily, then triphasics are available to hospitals, so this enitre point of commercial availability is really just a restatement of my opponent's assertion that conversion of defibrillators is not very easy. No need to address the same point twice - I've already argued earlier this round that most biphasics can be converted to triphasics easily. ==== "My opponent's position" No matter what my opponent claims, we are NOT debating whether biphasics are superior to monophasics. We're debating whether or not "Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators." My opponent, as PRO, is claiming that they should, I am claiming that they should not. Let us look at two different statements. 1. "Biphasics should replace monophasics." 2. "Triphasics should replace monophasics." These are mutually exclusive. The answers to these questions will tell us which is true, assuming one or the other is indeed true. Which are better, biphasics or triphasics? Would it be difficult for either of these to replace monophasics, and is the extra trouble worth it? The answer to the first question is that triphasics are superior. Triphasic waveforms have been shown to be superior in various applications, whereas biphasics have never shown themselves to be superior to triphasics. The answer to the second question is that it would be a little bit more difficult for triphasics to replace monophasics. The additional difficulty comes from the need to flash the firmware in biphasics to convert them to triphasics. However, this is a very small difficulty, and the benefits of triphasics outweigh this small level of difficulty. Of course, it could be true that neither of the statements is true. This would be true if there was some other alternative, like quadriphasics, that was even more worth it. This is only a problem for my opponent. My only obligation in this debate is to show that my opponent is wrong. Due to the nature of his claim, I simply have to provide one or more superior alternatives to biphasics replacing monophasics. Piling on more alternatives only helps me, and only hurts my opponent. ==== One last thing My opponent did not address my explanation of why firmware changes would be enough to convert biphasics to triphasics. I claimed last round that biphasics had all the necessary hardware to be converted into triphasics- a pulse generator, and a mechanism to automatically switch pulses, among other things. My opponent had demanded that I do more than just cite a source, but that I provide reasoning for why my source is correct; I did just that, and now he has failed to address my reasoning. By dropping this part of my argument, he is conceding that biphasics contain all the necessary hardware to be converted to triphasics, and that firmware changes should be all that's required for the conversion. I look forward to these concluding statements. |
44 | 80e3ce8f-2019-04-18T15:56:43Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting Thanks to Romanii for the debate! I will now be rebutting Con's case.CONTENTION ONE: Right to InactionCon writes that "with any human right in a democracy comes the right to abstain from exercising that right." This is, essentially, the crux of Con's argument here. That with every right comes a converse right of abstention. It is this notion that I shall be challenging.Firstly, in practice, certain rights impose obligations on citizens to fulfill. For instance, I have a right to a jury trial. If I were ever arrested and made to stand trial, the court, in furtherance of might right to a jury, can compel people to serve as jurors.You cannot escape jury duty simply because you want to. In other words, you cannot simply abstain from jury duty. Why is this so? Well, it is a duty of citizenship. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that due process is upheld in its legal system, and so therefore can force people to do things (like testify or serve on juries) in order to protect that interest. In simpler terms, the right to due process outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit, and thus I can be coerced to use my free time to serve the ends of due process.I will argue here that the right to effective, comprehensive, democratic governance outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit. Consider, choosing to abstain from voting is--for most people--a choice about free time. They just don't want to take the time to vote. If my right to democratic governance outweighs my right to dispense with my free time as I will, and if compulsory voting supports the former right sufficiently, compulsory voting is justified.The compelling benefit to society that compulsory voting serves is manifold, and includes: promoting democratic legitimacy, reducing violence, and promoting equality. I expound on all of these points in my case. These weighty concerns are sufficient to out balance concerns about free time and abstention, and thus, compulsory voting is justified.To summarize, "if there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. Voting is often viewed as an individual privilege, but it is also true that there are collective benefits from the participation of citizens in elections. Because all Americans benefit from having representative democracy as a form of government, all Americans benefit when others exercise the right to vote. The individual act of voting is essential to the collective's ability to have democratic government, and as such should not be waivable." [1]Secondly, "the theory of democracy is based upon the social contract between the government and the people. When a democracy is established, the people cease to be in a state of nature, where they are free to do whatever they choose, and become part of the community, bound by its laws. The people are the government, agreeing to live together and be bound by laws for mutual security. However, the duty of the citizen does not end simply by following the laws of the community; the citizen owes certain duties to the community. The government (community) must govern justly and with the consent of the governed, and, in return, the individual (citizen) must follow the laws of the community." [2]Whether or not we accept a social contract explanation of government, we can accept that membership in a country entails certain responsibilities, duties that run both directions. Citizens have a duty to the government, and the government has a duty to the people."The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing…Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold…it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout…It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [3]Free riders have shirked their duty to the state, and therefore are unjustifiably reaping the benefits when the government does good things for the people collectively. Thus, voting can be made compulsory to enforce this two-way relationship actually remains two-way, and to ensure that no one is unjustly gaming the system.Thirdly, Con states: "Even if Pro were to prove that making voting compulsory is 'beneficial,' that still wouldn't prove that compulsory voting is 'justified,' as the resolution states, because it would still be a violation of our right to inaction." Look at my Observation Two from last round, where I point out that I can show that an action is justified in two ways (1) that it is just or morally right, and (2) that it is reasonable or rational. Rights are typically expressed as moral concerns, and therefore if there is a "right" to abstention, I might not be able to show that CV is just or morally right; however, I could still show that CV is reasonable by showing that it is beneficial. So, Con is incorrect when he says that a right to abstention precludes me from affirming the resolution.Fourthly, as a matter of practical fact, Con's underlying assumption (i.e. that a right to X implies the converse right to not do X) is faulty. "Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll." [4]CONTENTION TWO: "Bad" VotingCon's basic premise here is that CV would lead to bad votes (a.k.a. "donkey" votes). His arguments are woefully unsubstantiated, and I will endeavor to show how, empirically, his arguments are false.Firstly, "empirical evidence casts further doubt on the hypothesis of random distortion: In Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that…there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes. It might be retorted that this only shows that compelling people to vote is a waste of time because deliberate informality ends up being the functional equivalent of abstention. The obvious response is that this is only true of a very small proportion of typical abstainers; the vast majority cast – or sincerely attempt to cast – valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout by as much as 30+ percentage points, one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged." [5]Secondly, if the empirics don't convince you, there are theoretical arguments out there that suggest that in places where CV is implemented, parties will go out of there way to educate voters more fully about issues and candidates. "Firstly, if conversion replaces mobilization as the main aim of parties during a campaign, they have an incentive to focus on policy rather than on 'hype,' which should in theory lead to an electorate better-informed about issues and policies. Secondly, if voters know in advance that they will be voting on election day and that they will have to choose from among the options on offer, they have greater reason to pay attention to the campaign than is the case when they can toy with the idea of not voting only to change their minds shortly before the election. The third reason is related to the impact of the universality of electoral campaigns under compulsory voting; if the assumption can be made that everyone will be voting, the election is more likely to become a topic of conversation among friends, relatives and colleagues, which should serve to inform people of relevant issues and the policy positions of parties." [4]"Participation breeds participation--people who take part in politics in one way tend to do so in another. Participation in the political process may bring about an interest in participation in other civic engagements, which in turn has a positive impact on the political competence among citizens. Therein, as Lijphart argues, compulsory voting could serve as a tool for civic education and political stimulation. The act of voting may also indirectly affect civic engagement by increasing the level of awareness of and interest in politics. Mandatory voting may spur people to gather information about politics and societal affairs in order to make a reasonable vote choice…compulsory voting should have a mobilizing and educating influence on citizens, also increasing the levels of political engagement more generally." [6]SOURCES1 - Source 6, R22 - Carmichael, Christopher W. Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 309-103 - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...4 - Source 4, R25 - Hill, Lisa. University of Adelaide, 2001, "Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting," Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 317 - Lundell, Krister. Professor Abo Akademi University, 2012, "Civic Participation and Political Trust: The Impact of Compulsory Voting," Representation, Vol. 48:2, p. 221Over to Con... |
41 | 66bd9166-2019-04-18T15:23:39Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Human-Emitted Greenhouse GasesIt is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [1]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [2][3]This excess CO2 traps heat. Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. [4]"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[5][6]CO2 correlates with temperature. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[7]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[8]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Indeed, it would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[9][10]This graph shows this: [5]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[5][11]This can be shown in the below graph: [5]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[12]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [13]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [14]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [15]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
24 | 35c1b265-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00009-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy The complexity of the current United States tax code and the current tax rates place an excessive tax burden on almost everyone from the individual taxpayers and small businesses to billionaires and large corporations. The excessive tax burden robs the consumer of purchasing power and businesses of capital that could be used to expand their operations. For the sake of narrowing the debate, I will focus my opening statement on how the current tax code affects individual taxpayers (families, students, etc.) and how replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax will empower them to play their roles in rebooting the American economy. The income tax data that I use will come from TaxRates.org (http://www.tax-rates.org...) and covers the 2014 tax year. In the 2014 tax rate schedule, I have identified three income groups for unmarried taxpayers and two groups for married taxpayers with a total household income. I will examine each in turn, beginning with unmarried taxpayers. The first group that I have identified are taxpayers who earned between $9,075 and $36,900 in 2014. These taxpayers are students who are trying to work and go to college at the same time, new college graduates who have taken entry level jobs to gain experience and pay off their student loans, and lower blue-collared laborers. The marginal federal income tax rate for this bracket is 15%. Therefore, a taxpayer in this category making $20,000 per year will need to pay $3000 in federal income taxes. After factoring the cost of living expenses, a person in this tax bracket is left with very little discretionary income, which will limit their upward mobility in the market. The second group that I identified were the taxpayers who fell between $36,900 and $89,350 in income. The people who fall into this category can be small businessmen, middle class professionals such as accountants, teachers, etc., and middle class blue collar laborers such as plumbers and electricians. The marginal federal income tax rate for this bracket is 25%. Consequently, a taxpayer who earns $65,000 per year will pay $16,250 in taxes. Finally, the third group that I identified were the taxpayers who fell between $89,350 and $186,350 in total income. These people include the lawyers, the doctors, and the tech experts who provide the services that make our lives function so smoothly. They will pay a marginal federal income tax rate of 28%. Someone who makes $100,000 per year will pay $28,000 in federal income taxes. In summary, the three examples I used will pay $3000, $16000, and $28000 respectively in federal income taxes. However, what if we replaced every federal tax with a simple 13% national sales tax and compared it solely against the results of the study on the income tax (ignores other taxes levied by the federal government). Assuming that the taxpayer spends every dime that they earn, the three examples I used would pay $2600, $8450, and $13000 in federal taxes for 2014. However, most individuals don't spend every dime they earn so the actual tax burdens would be on the lower end of these numbers. What effect would a national sales tax of 13% have on the economy? Consumerism drives the American economy. With more money to spend, the American consumer would be able to afford more. Many individuals would save their money to make purchases that they wouldn't have dreamed of under the current income tax structure. The subsequent rush to buy would spark an economic revolution in the American economy. Prices would drop as people demanded a larger quantity of goods and services. Businesses would expand to meet the greater consumer demand and would create more jobs. Consequently, everyone's standard of living would be improved. Afternote: This is my first debate on here. I look forward to hearing the arguments that my opponent will present. I greet him/her in advance and wish them good luck. |
26 | ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00007-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Standardized Testing is Good Issitt 15 Standardized Testing: An Overview. By: Issitt, Micah L., McMahon, Maureen, Points of View: Standardized Testing, 2015, Points of View Reference Center, 11/20/15 http://web.b.ebscohost.com... A standardized test is one that is given to evaluate the performance of students relative to all other students with the same characteristics, for example, all fourth-grade students or all students taking AP English in high school. In the United States, standardized testing is one of the primary methods used to measure the performance of educational institutions (and often teachers) and to make decisions about the distribution of funding. Standardized tests have been used in American schools since the 1930s to help identify students with special needs Since that time, a series of legislative measures, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has placed increasing importance on the results of standardized tests. In response to those measures, public schools currently administer standardized tests as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. Proponents argue that standardized testing is the most efficient method of assessing the performance of students and institutions and of maintaining the quality of education. Some critics argue that standardized tests are culturally and socially biased and that educators do not understand the variables that contribute to test scores. In addition, it has been suggested that standardized testing is an ineffective use of federal funding. Though many agree that the testing system is flawed, some believe that the current model can be reformed, while others believe that it is impossible to create a test to accurately measure aptitude across a diverse student population Standardized Test: A type of test given and graded in a uniform manner in an effort to create a universal standard against which the performance of individual students may be measured. Standardized Testing Today NCLB has been criticized by educational organizations who believe that the program represents a misallocation of federal funding. Critics argue that federal funding could be better used to improve pay rates and benefits for teachers, especially since tenure and reappointment are often based on test scores. In addition, some have criticized NCLB for making standardized testing a legal requirement without engaging in a suitable public debate. Under the Obama Administration, NCLB waivers were issued to districts that felt the program was not working for their schools. These waivers exempt school districts from some or all of the federal requirements under NCLB, including standardized testing. Proponents of testing argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that educational funding is given to schools with the greatest need, and that the government must rely on some testing procedure to ensure that federal funding is being effectively used. In addition, some proponents argue that without standardized testing educators would be unable to identify students with special needs. Several independent research studies have indicated that the process of studying for tests helps students to develop long-term recall, even concerning material that is not included in the actual test. However, recent studies indicate that short-answer and essay tests are more effective than the current, largely multiple-choice testing models in helping students to recall information. In addition, some critics believe that standardized testing teaches students to learn in a way conducive to multiple-choice exams (that there is always one right answer) while encouraging teachers to "teach to the test" rather than supporting students' critical-thinking skills. High-stakes federal achievement requirements have also led to several large-scale cheating scandals, including a 2011 revelation that hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers altered standardized tests in order to falsely report student performance improvements. Finally, while standardized tests offer information about a population, they do not provide data that addresses the achievement of specific individuals (Cangliosi, 1990, p. 26). |
31 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
1 | d9f7c3ee-2019-04-18T11:41:16Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Giving Teachers Guns We would not be "simply" handing out guns. Teachers would go through training and have a conceal and carry. They cant just walk in with a gun. It would also be their choice. If they would feel uncomfortable they just would not say yes. If they feel uncomfortable and say yes then that is their fault. But if a teacher is comfortable with having a gun and taking out an active shooter instead of laying out students lives then they should have the choice to be allowed to legally carry a gun after specific gun training and after they have met specific requirements. Teachers should be capable of protecting their students if they are comfortable with risking their life for multiple others. Giving teachers handguns could end a shooting faster and maybe even prevent multiple deaths. These active shooters should not be able to come into schools thinking everyone is unarmed. Because if these people know what they could be walking into and that it is a death trap, would they really start going into armed schools and shooting maybe one or two people? I know that teachers are people who teach most of what we know and that we learn from them but that does not mean they should not be able to protect students or themselves. |
8 | 75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be illegal. In the previous round, I was not arguing for making abortion to be illegal, I was arguing that since my opponent made the statement that rape should be the only exception to abortion, my opponent could not argue that fetuses have the right to life since he would be nulling that right by allowing the decision of abortion to rest in the hands of mothers who were raped.So far my opponent has not provided a single argument to why abortion should be illegal. What is wrong with abortion? My opponent hasn't said anything wrong about abortion to justify making it illegal.If there's nothing wrong with abortion, I don't see why it should be outlawed. |
44 | 63b4a1cb-2019-04-18T13:13:54Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Australia Day thirdly changing the date of Australia day won"t fix anything. Those aboriginal"s where killed no matter what, so its not like changing the date of our national holiday is going to fix all that. It"s understood that our government did some horrible things to aboriginals, but that was long ago and it doesn't mean we should change the date of our countries national day of celebration. Sure we should remember what we did wrong all those years ago, but we don't need to change the date of Australia day and ruin all 228 years of tradition as that would be senseless. |
24 | 4cf458a-2019-04-18T11:38:46Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100% Before I get into my rebuttal, I would like to start off with a quote. "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization- Olive V Wendell Holmes Jr. "With a 100% tax rate, nobody has any control over their own lives or their own happiness." I disagree with this point you made. The income taxes being paid are still contributing to oneself and one's environment. I would like to point out that the amount for all taxpayers are different depending on income. Income tax still varies on the ability to pay. "100% tax rate takes away all choice." I disagree with that. The 0% tax rate doesn't give ultimate freedom of choice. It allows people to just rely on charity and regressive tax. Regressive taxes don't change. Examples include sales taxes, property fees, and user fees. Everyone depending on the amount of income they have may vary. Regressive tax causes lower income< people to pay a larger share than people above their level of ability to pay. Not being able to use income tax takes away an easier opportunity. That easier opportunity would be income taxes as it is. It does the redistribution throughout all levels of wealth. Just relying on regressive taxes and charity wouldn't make the economy better. Just relying on organizations that contribute to regressive tax and charity would be too relied upon. How would we know if the money going to charities are spread? How would the state pay its bills without income tax? The other percentage intended for charity could be taken by the organization that contributes to that. States without income tax have a high tax disadvantage on the poor. Income tax does not put strain on the poor. It's redistributing wealth. That ties in to the term "progressive". I believe it's better than relying on regressive tax. Regressive tax: (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes. definition from Oxford dictionary As I stated before, taxing people with income doesn't leave them empty-handed. The government would use the money for exactly what has room for improvement. Letting the people choose where the money goes would be unfair. There is a possibility the money would be spread unevenly and not through all levels of wealth. There are vital services for taxpayers.The government imposes tax for a reason. Income tax raises money for government spending, redistributing income, social development, correcting market failure, and management. Having a lower income tax could lower the quality of benefit. This is something that shouldn't be dependent on charity. We know that not all people would give to charity. Relying on that small amount that donates is unrealistic. We should face a contribution from a whole. "With no tax burden, plenty more people could choose to give generously to the armed forces, to volunteer and professional emergency services and so on." That point is just an assumption."This also means that if the tax burden were 0%, people would still contribute to the needy." This is also an assumption. It's even rare in some cases to find someone willingly donate to the poor. It is clear that the negative side of the resolution is the greater good for the greater majority. It follows with the definition of utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater majority. With this reasoning, how could one determine if the majority of people would contribute to society in that way? "We already have healthcare systems around the world which require payment, and return an improvement on quality if more money is spent." Those payments would have to increase in order to have stability within the community. That way would be unfair in this case. You are still relying on the people who have healthcare to do the rest. Relying on other sources besides income tax leaves behind the poor. There are moral reasons why we don't keep every cent earned. If each person kept every cent earned, the money in society wouldn't go through all levels of wealth. The wealthy would be limited and given more. This would lead to a higher percentage of the lower class. Tax has happened to affect people's behavior. Tax can be used to discourage the purchase of products that pose a risk to health. This includes tobacco, alcohol, and other items mainly useless when it comes to living. This applies to all types. Sources: https://apps.irs.gov... Because of this, I agree with the negative side of the resolution. Thank you and I look forward to your response. |
29 | cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00007-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The solution to illegal immigration is not to grant aliens the same rights as United States citizens or immigrants who are here legally. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs taxpayers $113 billion every year, which amounts to an extra $1,117 per household ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, but this only yields $13 billion per year, leaving a net cost of $100 billion that must be made up by law-abiding citizens. ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigration is clearly unhealthy for America. In fact, the money spent on education and welfare programs for illegal aliens exceeded the budget deficits of 18 states in 2009 ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). If a "path to citizenship" were granted, tax revenues from current illegal aliens would certainly increase. However, this yield would be greatly exceeded by the cost of the full welfare benefits to which they would automatically become entitled ("Illegal Immigration...American Taxpayer"). Therefore, illegal immigration should be discouraged so that the U.S. can dig itself out of its fiscal grave and first provide law-abiding citizens with the care they need. Works Cited "Illegal Immigration: the $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer." Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 18 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... |
22 | b1c291e7-2019-04-18T15:36:59Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Protective Edge was justified, and was conducted with professionalism FRAMEWORKI shall take the liberty here to define some terms, then shall move on to my other preliminary comments before my attempts in negating the resolution.Def. 1 Justified shall be defined as an exemplification of justice; i.e all justified actions deliver justiceDef. 2 Professionalism shall be defined, in this context, as abiding with the conduct of the Geneva Convention and other Human Rights conventionThen with these terms justified, it is now clear that the opposition must prove that the cause and effect of Operation Protective Edge (shall be called OPE from now) were both considered deliveries of "justice", and that Israeli's forces acted within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. Henceforth, the opposition has a slightly higher BoP than I do. Moreover, this proposition is a conjunction, with two conjuncts ("justified" and "professional"), henceforth the negation of one of these conjuncts would mean the negation of the whole motion. Henceforth, even if the opposition proves that these attacks were carried out with professionalism, it may be said that if he fails to prove that it is justified, then the resolution remains negated. CASE1) International RelationsAs the opposition affirms, OPE was launched in retaliation to the deaths of 3 Israeli teenagers. Retaliation was brutal and often scary. If justice were the killing of many innocent people, then justice was delivered in this attack; however, this was not so, as shall be proven in the following contentions. It must be noted here that Israeli forces were the first to react to these murders with an airstrike that killed 7 Hamas members on July 6th. a) Sec Council Resolution 242The United Nations, however, has taken all means (under it's powers) to neutralize the situation at hand here. UN Sec. Council Resolution 242 (passed 1967) demands (in operative clause 2, subclause I) every state to "respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State" which naturally includes Palestine. The same UN Sec. Council Resolution also demanded that Israel withdraw from the following territories currently occupied by the nation: Bethlehem, Jericho, Gaza and Rafah. This was the policy of land for peace. Land for Peace was universally accepted by the Israeli authorities, and withdrawals were organized. However, on the basis of the Sec. Council Reso. 242, Israel must respect the rights to sovereignity of the Palestinian pepole. This resolution provides the only basis for peace in the area until the Accords. b) Oslo AccordsThe Accords concluded that:Upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area, a transfer of authority from the Israeli military governmentThe existence of an autonomous area in Gaza and the West Bank demands Israel to do the following; (1) respect the rights of every Palestinian, (2) accept and respect the right to self-determination as was agreed in the first article of the UN charter, and (3) accept that Palestine is now a self-governing nation de facto, and will soon be de jure. The basis of democracy is the basis to elect whomever one wants; it must be agreed that since Hamas was elected in recent PA elections, it would be completely disgusting, if not unacceptable that Israel is willing to launch attacks on a member of the United Nations. c) International Recognition of the Authority of the PAHowever, how does one apply the notion of rights to whole governing nations? Sovereign nations have the rights to self-defense and sovereign nations have the full rights to sovereignity. It must be noted that 69.9% of the world's countries recognize the state of Palestine and the PA's power to rule. These countries include Russia, China, Sweden, and Brazil. The only countries against the recognition of the PA's power base is countries with strong ties with the United States, such as Australia and Britain. However, these countries still recognize that the PLO (and not Hamas) are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.With two PM of the Sec. Council in recognition (and a clear majority of the world too) of the legitimacy of the PA to rights to self-defense, it would be completely absurd to allow Israeli troops to occupy Gaza and the West Bank without considerations upon sovereignity of a nation. Con.) Justified means to "give everyone his due". This is the only exemplification of justice that can be discovered. A nation has the due of sovereignity, and unless the government (not the ruling party) has attacked another country, no country has any rights to agress on one sovereign nation and still claim to be have their cause justified by the mere institutions of justice. To "give on his due" is to respect agreements and their effects, even if they are contradictory and contrary to your interests. This is the basis of democracy and equality. Israel has not done this, as demonstrated.2) ConductConduct has been a huge issue for OPE. OPE has killed around 2,100++ Palestinian civilians, whilst Palestine has killed 3 Israeli civilians and one Thai worker. This case will prove that the retaliations are both (1) unjustified and (2) conducted with barbarism, not civility and professionalism as the opposition claims. a) Hospital AirstrikesIsrael has launched airstrikes on 7 UN hospitals, and many more hospitals in the PA areas. Technically, it is a natural rule of ethical judgment to not attack those who cannot fight. Apparently, Israeli Defense Forces think that people with missing limbs and arms are terrorists and can resist the onslaught of the armed Israeli soldiers. How is this even conceivable? Nevertheless, via the Geneva Convention, Art. 18:Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.Civilian hospital entails hospitals not supporting militants. The opposition may claim that Hamas has been using hospitals to launch rocket strikes onto the Israeli territory. However, Art. 19 of Geneva Convention states that: Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in allappropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. Once this has been done, it shall then be conceived that airstrikes were authorized and justified, albeit they may be atrocious in nature. Israel has done the opposite of this; Israel has striked many hospitals without warning. al-Aqsa hospital, a hospital housing many wounded and many terrorized refugees, was indiscriminately shelled by an Israeli tank with no warning whatsoever. [1] Apart from this, it has also been confirmed that there was no military presence near many populated hospitals that Israel shelled.b) Disproportionate Use of ForceAccordingly to Israel's conduct, any connection with Hamas is a legitimate reason for an attack. Israel has been known on many occasions to have used F-16s to attack homes of individual civilians. There are many incidents of this happening; VICE News records an airstrike that destroyed 5 homes in a Gazan street which killed two Palestinian citizens and wounded another. International Humanitarian Law does not allow this; even if the person may be affiliiated with terrorist groups like Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, targets that may be attacked are only those where military and strategic advantage of the place is currently exploited. Accordingly to a HR Council report to the United Nations, "knock on the roof" procedures are highly ineffectual, as Palestinian citizens did not have enough time to leave. In one instance, the knock-on-the-roof came only one minute before the airstrike came. They conducted the operations with professionalism in a sense of war and destruction.Israel treats Palestinian houses which are populated with as much respect as they treat deserted houses; they will launch an airstrike on every house in Gaza if possible. The Geneva Convention quotes:Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civiliansc) Israeli HR Violations and IntentionsIsraeli is not targetting Hamas. They are targetting Palestine as a whole; their definitions of "terrorists" is anyone that supports Hamas, which justifies their attacks apparently. 12 days into the operation, the Israeli Government has targetted 2,000 targets, most of them hit, whilst the Iron Dome system rendered the 1,500 attacks on Israeli lands highly ineffectual. Albeit Hamas's attacks against Israeli citizens are deplorable, retaliation against Hamas in the form of indiscriminate attacks against the Palestine people are much more deplorable than this. Israel has killed 2,200 Palestinian citizens, only about 10% of them "militants".Apart from this, Israel has arrested 700 Palestinians from Gaza since OPE. Is this not equivalent to the abductions by Hamas? There are no justifications for both, but on balance, it can be said that since Israel is not the sovereign power over Gaza and the West Bank, they have no rights to arrest anyone. These actions must be condemened.Con.) Israel has violated the rights of Palestinian citizens, has striked hospitals and has destroyed many Palestinian homes. Israel has violated the Geneva Convention on multiple occassions and is still doing so. Israel has arrested 700 Palestinians and detained many more, most of these from Gaza, where Israel has no sovereignity rights. The violation of the Geneva Convention represents unprofessional behaviour, whilst the other deplorable actions by Israel presents other argumentations for the unjustified nature of OPE. Resolution is negated |
32 | 70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Voting should be compulsory. I live in Australia where voting has always been compulsory. I guess the term "voting" is used loosely since all that is required is to get your name marked off a polling station or to send in a potentially empty postal vote. Because of this (and other "get-outs"), people who do not feel inclined to vote may still avoid doing so without falsely skewing results or receiving a (rather mild) fine. However, I do concede that some donkey voting occurs. I argue that the amount that it occurs is negligible compared to the great majority of thoughtful voters. Furthermore, donkey voting occurs anyway in voluntary voting since the strong incentives for people to vote include the social incentive of merely being seen to vote. |
9 | caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | should students have to wear school uniforms What do u think should students wear school uniforms |
46 | f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00009-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate! |
44 | b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work. |
10 | fd606b23-2019-04-18T11:34:33Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory I will not be making an argument against the safety nor the effectiveness of the MMR vaccination because I agree with my opponent that it is safe and there is an obvious benefit to society for everyone who is able to get one to do so. I also agree with my opponents idea of making it easy to receive and afford the vaccination. I encourage every reader of this debate to get the MMR vaccination and keep up to date with all of your vaccinations. It's simple and it keeps you safe from contracting some pretty nasty stuff! !! It seems all I can really do is call into question the idea of making the vaccine mandatory. *Are we really going to asume that the government can truly keep us safe from every hazard we may encounter in our everyday lives? There's an obvious risk involved with the act of simply going outside. I went outside this morning and found two inches of snow that I didn't expect and the humidity made my hair frizz like a mutha, and that makes for a nightmarish Monday. Luckily, I didn't witness any car accidents because we're used to it where I come from, but car accidents represent a huge risk to us all. Would it be daft of me to ask my opponent to show that the diseases that we're arguing about actually represent a greater risk to society than vehicular boo boos do? And not just vehicular deaths, but traffic accidents in total, because not everyone who contracts those diseases will actually die. My opponent is basically asking where our rights end, and our responsibility for public safety begins. May I ask my opponent if we as individuals become a greater risk to public safety simply by becoming moter vehicle operators? Which one of these dilemmas represents a greater risk to society, the diseases or car accidents? Is there really anybody who can keep us safe from all the hazards we may face on a day to day basis? In my heart of hearts, I believe there is something that can help us to minimize the risks involved with everyday life, SCIENCE! !! !! Which brings me to my next point. *Is it not the responsibility of science to CONVINCE us of the benefits? Sadly, there seems to be a growing disconnect with the scientific community and the public at large. Will such an imposing law serve to help bridge that gap, or only extend it? I believe in the future and I believe science is at its forefront, but do we need to make science, the LAW? I'm sure my opponent can appreciate an argument for science, but isn't it a tad lazy of the science community to forego the convincing aspects and just go ahead and make their findings the law of the land? Admittedly, I might be getting rather broad, but still the disconnect between science and society remains and I fail to see how a sweeping law can help bridge the gap. I dream of a time in the near future when science and the community will once again be in harmony and with a little ingenuity and imagination, that can be a reality, and I don't believe infringing on our constitutional rights are inventive or imaginative, so that won't work. Making vaccinations mandatory won't convince the synics. Will a mandatory vaccination convince the antivaxers, or will it only strengthen their resolve? Who are they? Are they all contemplating the feng shui of thier caves while fashioning hats out of tin foil and talking to Jesus on a CB radio, or is it something as simple as, they're afraid of needles. The ladder of the two maybe easily convinced. Perhaps a deliberate public health campaign could be launched to try and persuade the squeamish ones into getting vaccinated, and that could be enough to push us to the goal of herd immunization. If we focus on how easy and quick and simple it is to get vaccinated, we could convince enough people to get the vaccine, and that might be all it takes to get us to the goal, without having to step on our freedom of choice. What about the antivaxers, will a sweeping new mandate convince them to get vaccinated, or will it only legitimize their fears? This brings up a good question, are most the people who don't get vaccinated doing so out of a fear of the federal government, or just because they're lazy and don't particularly like needles. If it is someone who is purposely resisting vaccines out of a fear of the government, I get the feeling that a mandatory vaccination will not persuade them, and may only serve to alienate them even more so from the rest of society. It seems to me that the only effective way for either is to convince them to get vaccinated willfully, not threaten them with legal consequences. Which leads me to my next contention. *How will we enforce this? I'm not quite sure what my opponent may have in mind as far as the legal consequences for not getting vaccinated. What should we do if a child reaches school age but has not received the MMR vaccination, should we bar the child from entering school? There's also the question of the legality of a vaccination mandate, will the public at large let the government pass a law that is an egregious violation of the constitution? Even if we simply dole out a penalty in the form of a tax, this doesn't remove the violators from society, and they're still free to wreak havoc on the public. We could make sure they're not free from a civil case and anyone who contracts one of the diseases in question from someone who willfully didn't get vaccinated is free to bring legal action against the offender, but even this can be problematic because it maybe difficult to prove in court that the sickness originated from the person in question. *Will we need to tighten or even close the borders to make the mandate truly effective? I once read about a case where a man from Israel was in the US visiting with relatives, but one thing the custom agents missed in this case was the measles he was carrying. It seems that the percentage of the population we need to have vaccinated to achieve herd immunization is based only on the number of permanent residents in the country, but it does not take into account the undocumented immigrants in the country or those who are visiting the country. How do we get the many undocumented immigrants to adhere to the mandate, and what legal consequence will they be subjected to if they violate it? Is it possible that some of the families of illegal immigrants maybe torn apart because of this mandate? What would the ramifications be for the tourism industry? Will we need to ensure that every tourist be vaccinated before entering the country? What consequences can we really levy on a foreigner who legally enters the country and causes a measles outbreak because they've not been vaccinated? *What about religious freedom? Some people may not get vaccinated because of religious beliefs. Is it morally sound to infringe on their freedom of religion? In my humble opinion, whether it's because of a religious belief, or because of an unfounded fear, antivaxers have a legitimate reason for not getting vaccinated and no matter how illegitimate You or I might find thier fears, it's still a valid fear to them and I fail to see how it is morally acceptable to force thier fears on them for the sake of others who are at risk for no fault of the antivaxers, or anyone for that matter. Again, I encourage everyone to stay current with all their vaccinations, but do we really need to infringe on the rights of the many for the sake of a few? I'm beside myself with excitement for this debate. |
48 | d20d622f-2019-04-18T19:15:59Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age. -OBSERVATION- I originally stated that whichever policy discourages drinking should be chosen, and I stand by this idea now. Drinking is almost never good for society, even (as my opponent suggests) in moderation. -REFUTATIONS TO MY ARGUMENTS- "…society will progress without regard to a certain drinking age. Simply put, natural selection will always advance society and there will always be those who choose not to partake in drinking at any age. Therefore, society will have progress and is too big to be affected by under aged drinking laws." If this is true, then there is no reason for us to debate the issue. If there will be no effect on society, then it is futile to waste time and energy changing the status quo. This idea would work for the CON side, should it be true. Unfortunately, however, a change in the legal drinking age would encourage more drinking, which would affect society through higher levels of substance abuse, alcohol-related crime and accidents, and teen pregnancies. This is because the majority of Americans do follow the law and wait to drink until age 21. Until my opponent presents a survey of Americans showing that a majority of Americans do not wait to drink, then he cannot show that the current laws fail. -- "Even now, in a place and time when people can only legally buy alcohol when over the age of 21, are there people who given their own personal characteristics are more likely to become alcoholics or have a drug problem. So should we penalize those people who are mature and responsible enough to handle the responsibility of drinking at an age lower than the current legal one of 21?" There are always some members of society who are more prone to substance abuse problems than others. However, the Norberg study shows quite plainly that those individuals who chose to drink before age 21 were a third more likely to have problems with alcohol later in life, and 70% more likely to have drug problems.[1] By lowering the drinking age, we would allow substance abuse to increase much more rapidly and become more widespread than it is now. -- "This contention made by my opponent, once again may be true. However, it falls outside the relevancy of our debate. We are once again arguing, lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Unplanned pregnancies by teenagers occur everyday. Sure teenagers may be under the influence of alcohol, but maybe we should be focusing more on sex education…" My opponent has conceded that my teen pregnancy contention is true. I agree that we are debating about lowering the drinking age. One effect of lowering the drinking age would be more frequent and widespread teen pregnancies, which is obviously a problem for the US. Sex education is a useful tool to combat teenage pregnancies, but that is irrelevant to this debate about the drinking age. -- "And this leads back to my contention that teenagers most often binge drink when they do partake in illegal consumption. The idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities." Binge drinking will not be solved by lowering the drinking age. It will always happen; in fact, if we do lower the legal drinking age, we will only change the nature of binge drinking from a phenomenon among college students to a phenomenon among high schoolers. This can be seen not only logically, but also in other countries. if we lower the drinking age to 18 or even 16, drinking will become more important for high schoolers, because they will have more contact with alcohol. This will encourage them to begin "bingeing," which will be more serious because of their younger age. Newsweek reported in September 2008 that "In England and Germany, where the drinking age is already 18, bingeing is also a growing problem."[2] -- "And this more than likely leads to actions resulting in possible pregnancies, which could be avoided if the drinking age were lowered, thus changing the social status quo towards drinking to be more responsible and controlled." A lowered drinking age will only encourage drinking at a younger age, which will lead to even more substance abuse problems and pregnancies in even younger children. -REFUTATIONS TO MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS- I. Service in the Armed Forces & Alcohol "In my first contention, no where did I mention that consumption of alcohol by our service men and women would be 'beneficial' … Is it beneficial for our service men and women to be serving at all? Is it beneficial for them to be allowed to smoke or chew tobacco? Is it beneficial for them to have bullets whizzing by their heads? Is it beneficial for the psychological damage that they may incur? No it may not be beneficial for them to consume alcohol, at 18 or at 21, but if they are experiencing all these other things, why not be allowed to legally partake in the consumption of an alcoholic beverage?" My opponent has not explained why being put in a dangerous war zone should allow members of them military to drink a glass of beer. What I explained in Round 1, and what my opponent completely ignored, is that there are unique harms associated with drinking at a young age, whereas military service is equally dangerous at 18 as it is at 27. "If our military, the most powerful and possibly well organized and respected, can trust that the responsibility of an 18 year old is good enough to go to war, then why can't we trust their responsibility in terms of alcohol consumption?" It is not that we cannot trust them, but that it would be dangerous to their health and general well-being to drink alcohol. II. Binge Drinking As I stated earlier this round, lowering the drinking age will cause a shift in the population that partakes in binge drinking, so that it will then be 16 year olds who drink at such unhealthy quantities. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the idea that underage Americans have access to alcohol through older friends. This actually shows that, if we lower the drinking age, younger and younger teenagers would begin drinking. That would be especially harmful because the younger a person is, the more harmful alcohol is. III. Teaching of Responsible Drinking Habits In response to my ideas about his third conention, my opponent only restates what he already told us in Round 1. Unfortunately, this remains illogical and untrue. A lower drinking age will foster more early drinking. Early drinking leads to drug problems[1] and unplanned teen pregnancies.[3] Parents who are addicted to dangerous substances and who are unready to raise children in the first place will not even begin to teach their young ones responsible habits. This is from where the moral degradation derives. IV. Law Enforcement Resources My opponent continues to believe that teenage drinking is not a serious problem. He also twisted my analogy without looking at its real meaning: he is advocating that the US make a crime legal, so that we don't have to "waste" resources enforcing the law. So, should we also make murder or armed robbery legal? Aren't we wasting resources arresting those criminals, too? Shoplifting and underage drinking can most definitely be compared. They are both crimes. -SUMMARY- Drinking is a serious problem in our society that must be curbed. The policy that my opponent supports will only encourage underage drinking, which causes substance abuse and unplanned teen pregnancies, among other devastating harms. Binge drinking will increase and unhealthy habits will be taught to children. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON. [1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://www.uga.edu... |
15 | a4afe1af-2019-04-18T18:01:04Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Medical testing on animals does more good than harm. Hello GeorgiaAshely. Nice to meet you. First of all, I believe there is a misunderstanding on the topic. The Instigator seems to believe that the topic is discussing whether we should use medical means to carry out experiments to treat animals. But the term "medical testing on animals" is generally accepted as, testing newly made medical substances to assure quality or safety of the medicines before they are sold. Now, I would like to begin developing on my newly suggested and rather accurate definition of the topic. INTRODUCTION On this round, I will introduce a point regarding animal rights and the purpose of carrying out experiments on animals (having their rights completely forsaken) when there are alternatives. On my second round, I will show what medical testing on animals in laboratories really is like, realistically and is often abused. On the third round, I will dig deeper into the topic. I will identify the clashes of the debate, analyze each clash into deeper level and finally, show how my points outweigh the Instigator"s. ARGUMENTATION There are things called animal rights. Animals are entitled of life just like we are. We do not have rights to exploit animal species just for our own benefit. When medical experiments are carried out to animals, usually sample animals are injected of medicine samples which has unknown effect. The medicine might as well have fatal side-effects. The medicine might as well be poisonous. Testing unknown substances on innocent animal is immoral, evil and hypocritical in a society that emphasizes importance of life. We should not consider animal testing similar with butchery. Those animals that are butchered for meat in fact lead a satisfying life in an idealistic environment. They are well fed and are provided of safe and proper shelter. Some ranches even turn on classical music for cows to decrease their stress. As animals, they need not to worry about their safety and food which is the biggest problem that animal species face. When those animals mature after living an idealistic life, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimum pain as possible. These days, animals are electrified with electricity at about 300~500V. This inflicts minimal pain and takes the life at a split second. These animals are born to be eaten anyways. They live a worriless life until their fast and unexpected death. Act of butchery cannot possibly be compared with animal testing. Sample animals suffer excruciating pain until they die off and are incinerated. If there was no alternative, everyone would have admitted that animal testing is a necessary devil. However, it is absolutely untrue. Alternatives for animal testing exist and still are being developed. There are cases where cultured cells were used to carry out experiments. There were successful experiments that used human skin sample to perform safety assurance experiment for cosmetics, for skin corrosion and irritation (MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent). Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be done on donated human blood, on testing its effects and interaction with immune system cells. This is the source where I am coming from. . "Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can "transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods." "Innovative biotechnology firm H"rel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. "VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed. "Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc. "Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals. "Antibodies"which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice"can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. "A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body. "Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education." Take a look at how many alternatives can be made. The same site also added that those are "just a few examples". If there is a will, there is a way. If we just try to develop and look for ways to find an alternative, we can do it and we did. SUMMARY Experimenting substance samples on animals is inhumane. It undeniably inflicts insufferable pain to animals and is very hypocritical when we value so much among our society, the morals that emphasize importance of life. Such ridiculous tradition on inflicting pain on innocent animals can even be abolished with the help of modern science. There exists plenty alternatives. Human skin cell imitations, computer simulations, MRIs and donated human blood are just few examples of functioning alternative. When there is an alternative, there is no need to carry out animal testing that violates animal rights in the first place. |
8 | 99cb9f4-2019-04-18T17:53:30Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Resolved: The United States should value the pro-life stance above the pro-choice stance. Thank-you for your response. I will now give a list of my definitions. Unintended Pregnanices: Unintended pregnancies include unwanted pregnancies as well as those that are mistimed. Worldwide, 38% of pregnancies are unintended. Fetus: A developing human from usually two months after conception to birth. Individual Liberty: a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Back-Alley Abortions: Illegal abortions not medically supervised. Reproductive Rights: Reproductive Rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health. First Trimester: First twelve weeks into the pregnancy. Second Trimester: Between the 12th week to the 27th week. I would like to begin by resolving an often misrepresentation of those who take the stance of "Pro-choice" over "Pro-life". People who choose to be Pro-choice accept and understand that in the end, it is ultimately the woman's decision and our efforts should be focused not in persuading the woman to choose an abortion or not choose an abortion, but giving her a comfortable environment and answering any questions she has relating to the abortion so she can make a better decision. It is NOT the intention of Pro-choicers to encourage women or discourage women from getting an abortion. I will now go through the benefits of being pro-choice, and why having legalized abortion is a completely necessary thing for society to function properly. Contention 1: Abortion should remain legal and medically supervised the way it is. Before the abortion process takes place, the mother is often placed in a comfortable environment where she can ask questions and resolve her feelings or doubts to make a better decision. The clinic is run by doctors and professionals who know what they're doing and are not interested in coercing or forcing the woman to make any decisions she is not comfortable with. Once she has made her decision, the doctors decide whether to go through with the abortion, or to send her home since she made the choice to keep the child. Without legalized abortion, mothers wanting to get rid of an unborn child that they don't want would need to refer to back-alley abortions, which could potentially danger the mother's life. Women who get a legalized abortion are also still able to have another child, as they would have no organs damaged like they would during a back-alley abortion, since these types of abortions are unprofessional and deterimental to the woman's health. Contention 2: Most of the guilt and stress that comes from a woman after an abortion is due to external pressure and influences, such as people in the Pro-Life movement, or other people who try to convince her she committed murder. One of the arguments that a lot of Pro-Life representatives bring up time and time again is that the mother feels incredibly guilty after she has gotten an abortion. This, however, is due to a lack of understanding on their part. When an unborn child is aborted from the mother, her hormones change back to their pre-pregnancy state, and a whole range of emotions is usually felt by her. This includes happiness, relief, sadness, and irritation. On top of this, most women do not get support from their family after they've performed an abortion, and she is usually left with her own thoughts. Loneliness is not usually a pleasant experience. There are also irrational fears that are completely natural from being in an emotional state, that the woman will never be able to have a child again. But if she got an abortion done by the professionals at the abortion clinics, the safe, legalized abortion and not a back-alley abortion, then she will be able to have another child whenever she so pleases. 5% to 30% of women report feelings of regret, anxiety, guilt, mild depression, and other negative emotions. Pro-Life advocates try and make those numbers sound larger, and the media sensationalizes on women that feel guilty afterward, but the numbers show that most women, after getting an abortion, do not feel any guilty at all. Contention 3: Abortion clinics are a separate entity from government and are usually funded by concerned volunteer-groups or pro-abortion advocates. Abortion can be a fairly expensive procedure. However, what most people don't know is that the government doesn't pay for it, and neither do we. The funding for abortion comes from normal citizens like you or me that understand the importance of a mother's right to an abortion, and there are usually group donations and generous individuals willing to help pay to cover the costs of an abortion. In this way, abortion clinics cannot be exposed to corruption because the government has no hand in the decisions being made, and cannot mandate their will on the procedures taking place. In this regard, there is no ulterior motive for abortion clinics to abort women's unborn children. The aborted fetus is used for stem-cell research, but there is enough aborted fetuses already that the necessity to coerce or bribe women to get an abortion is simply non-existent. On top of this, an abortion usually does not take place (depending on the clinic) without the consent of the mother's parents, first. Contention 4: Before the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy, the fetus is not considered conscious or aware, and should not be considered alive. If it is not considered to be alive, the decision for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be used to defend the unborn child. Therefore, only the mother can really decide. Scientific evidence is demonstrating to us that while the child is in the womb, it is not actually considered a human being until the 24th week of the pregnancy. If this is true, then how are human rights given to a non-human entity? The fallacies in the Pro-Life argument are great, and most fail to accept the scientific evidence that the unborn fetus is a human being by the 24th week due to a religious bias or other forms of ignorance. If we are to argue that getting an abortion is wrong, we must also argue that the destruction of sperm cells is also wrong, despite the fact that sperm dies and is recycled every three days. Before the 24th week of pregnancy, the unborn child in the mother's womb is only, in reality, a conglomeration of tissues and cells that are in the process of becoming human, but are not actually human. I actually have a few more contentions to list here, but have sadly run out of room. These four contentions alone, however, should be enough to show why abortion is important, why it should remain legal, and how it benefits not only the individual, but also society as a whole. I now give the floor over to Pro. Sources: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.pro-truth.net... http://fvdb.wordpress.com... http://www.princeton.edu... |
28 | d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be Legal Most prostitutes have boob enlargements and as they are willing to add artificial parts to themselves to attract attention most prostitutes are also idiots, they are not smart and because they either took drugs or only cared about dating as a kid they have no or little education. By legalizing Prostitution, eventually kids would be seeing phonographic images in advertisements and our population would grow to large as people would be reproducing without knowing what they are doing and committing to, the government will then have to pay those people under the assisted living and child raising program creating even more debt. |
45 | e3944735-2019-04-18T16:33:26Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Winter is a Better Season than Summer It's my pleasure to accept! 1 – Yard Work. Pro shows that cardiovascular exercise can damage a heart's health and I am not disputing this as cardiovascular exercise can be done all year around. However, to clarify, the source for this statement mentions that the study is done on those who have excessively done cardiovascular exercise, such as Olympic runners. My original statement on the relationship between shoveling snow and cardiovascular risks stems from the warm up. As Pro has mentioned before, Winter is a great time to rest, the idea of warming up before tasks would be reluctant and is a problem that many face. Shoveling snow is also falling out of practice in some areas as people are using more snow-blowers[1] and this can be reflected in that most people do not like to shovel snow[2]. I've claimed that Summer is excellent times compared to Winter to produce crops because Pro defines the landscape of Winter as "a drastic change." This implication is once again that we are considering a Winter Wonderland and in such settings greenhouses are needed to effectively produce crops, which holds great limitations for quantity. UKs provisional crops at June last year mentions the decrease due to the harsh Winter months[3]. A harsh Winter cannot only deteriorate its own time frame for crops, but of further seasons as well. 2 – Celebrations. In Pros original post the Winter celebrations were mentioned and I quote "...range from the festivities of Christmas and...". I've included festivities as Pro mentioned them first. Holidays in essence are festive and as Pro has linked to the definitions we can see that festival as a noun is "a special time or event when people gather to celebrate something." Making the amount of time to gather with friends and/or family much larger in Summer. The list provided by Pro of winter activities is biased as it is a list dedicated to Winter and also contains events not celebrated any more (times of old such as Roman, Saxon, and old Germanic festivals). 3 – Sports. Sports such as water sports and Winter sports may be enjoyed throughout seasons by artificially creating the proper environment, this is true for ice rinks in Summer and indoor pool usage during Winter, but respectively they both have events that would be incredibly difficult to reproduce outside of their perspective seasons. Which ones again boils it down to personal preference. 4 – Food. Warm foods are best enjoyed during the Winter and cold foods are best enjoyed during Summer, this is not mean warm food is not enjoyable or as enjoyable in Summer (vice-versa for Winter). Pro did claim that "Summer weather makes it way too hot to eat soup or drink hot chocolate. Even drinks such as tea and coffee are harder to enjoy in the summer because of their warmth." The idea that soup or hot chocolate cannot be eaten during Summer is nonexistent, while tea and coffee are still very much enjoyable as most locales (such as homes and business) are temperature controlled. I'm doubting that during Winter Pro drinks heated water, all fruits microwaved, and melted ice creams during Winter, and regardless if Pro does, this would boil down to preference. 5 – Summer Cost. Pro associated crime rate with the absence of school and the source for this claims that this could be a factor and continues to say that it is speculation as juveniles already contribute to a large portion of violent crime, that there is nothing special about summer that may cause an increase in offenses. Another factor that the article brings into play is that it may be due to the large interaction between members in society that brings people together, such as potential wrongdoers. This goes to show that Summer is a time where people truly get together (regardless of their reasons). 6 – Stress & Crime – As mentioned in Summer Cost, Summer brings potential wrongdoers together and this makes July the highest murdering month (Summer) and then followed by December (Winter). The idea that Winter is safer than Summer by far is nonexistent as they are two of the most criminally active months. July being a month of personal vendettas and December peaking for murders based on property. Additional to this, robbery and burglary are highest in December and January tops the list for auto theft[4]. The stress levels are at all time highs during Winter with December, January, and February peeking as the most stressful months of the year based on a 2,000 people survey[5]. Additionally to this, traveling is most stressful during December[6] and couples face the most stress in this month[7]. A time that is meant for reuniting the family and bring joy along with them shows that stress is what's really happening in their lives. 7 – Health. From Wikipedia Humans are sensitive to cold, see hypothermia. Snowblindness, norovius, seasonal depression, slipping on black ice and falling icicles are other health concerns associated with cold and snowy weather. In the Northern Hemisphere, it is not unusual for homeless people to die from hypothermia in the winter[8]. These are strictly due to cold weather rather than extracurricular activities conducted during cold weather as humans have evolved in tropical climates. Pros claim that Summer is not beneficial to improve one's mind because people may not want to and this is no different than any other season, including Winter. The holidays of Winter are actually a distraction towards one's goals. While the longer hours of darkness may provide a more restful sleep, the stress levels of the holidays do not. [1] - http://www.silive.com... [2] - http://www.startribune.com... [3] - https://www.gov.uk... [4] - http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [5] - http://www.friendslife.com... [6] - http://finance.yahoo.com... [7] - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org... |
42 | 18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | THW ban boxing Thank you.Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.My strategy in rebuttal: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal:1. "First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment." -CON.-Legalize duels then!2. "In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports." -CON.- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.3. " Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top..." And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but..." Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. "-CON.- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.4. "What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing."-CON.- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.5. "My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law." The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous. "-CON.- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!6. "And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. "-CON.- Legalize suicide.7. "This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. " -CON.- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.8. " a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports."-CON.- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
48 | a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00006-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | marriage age should be lowered Here is the format we will do it in: round 2: Arguments round 3: Rebuttals of arguments round 4: Rebuttals of rebuttals (If any. Forfeit allowed) round 5: Conclusion |
1 | 7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | why should teachers be armed well i think i am right and i am right what about sandy hook elementry school 20 kids and 6 adults died because they did not have a gun on them to kill the killer and if they did those kids would still be alive today |
1 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
12 | 224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Businesses Providing Birth Control Products Large companies get certain perks (tax benefits, bankruptcy protection). In return, they have certain obligations such as mediating between government and employees to make sure that the employees have health insurance. Health insurance are a part of the benefits that an employee has earned. So employers do not have a right to take away parts of the benefits of their employees. Whether the health insurance should have coverage for birth control is a matter between the employee, the insurance company and the government, and is not the business of the employee. The objection of some employers that they would be paying for birth control which is against their religion is misplaced. Health insurance that covers birth control is cheaper than health insurance that does not cover it. My opponent has dropped her argument that such a mandate would lead to discrimination, because, as I pointed out, the Affordable Care Act eliminates gender discrimination by requiring insurance companies to charge women and men the same premiums. |
42 | 12ab49cf-2019-04-18T18:18:33Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Gum in School (REVISED) Thanks again PeacefulChaos!!!! I will state my reasons with "R". Please try to make the arguments to the point( no super long paragraphs). Sorry if my arguments aren't that good. I'm very, very young!! R1: Gum has studies that show that gum helps students focus and learn better. Andrew Scholey has made discoveries that have shown that gum improves our short-term memory. Therefore, students will remember facts and understand concepts better. Also, kids work better when there is something slightly distracting going on. A.K.A. CHEWING GUM! :) The sugar in gum allows the students to have extra sugar dose and helps them stay awake in class. R2: Gum in school provides an open teacher-student relationship. Because most schools don't allow gum in school,(which I hope will change) kids would have to sneak in gum when the teacher is not looking. That makes the student dishonest to their teacher, thus feeling guilty. If gum is allowed in school, children wouldn't have to feel guilty and sneak in gum, for they are allowed to freely eat and bring gum in school. Teachers and students would then feel trustworthy together, and build a better relationship. R3: Gum allows kids to choose healthier foods. Many studies have shown that gum allows kids to choose healthier foods. If a student chews gum before lunch, they are bound to eat less high-calorie foods because they already satisfied their sugary craving. With only one stick of gum, kids would stop eating fatty, sugary foods during snack and lunch. Also, because of gum, kids wouldn't be hungry during class. There have been many students' stomachs' empty and grumbling, so they would have a hard time concentrating on the classwork. Solution: Gum! =] Thank you once again, and I wait eagerly for your argument. Happy debating! |
3 | a841e780-2019-04-15T20:22:35Z-00020-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Sanctions are the opposite of free trade and therefore should not be used because free trade has greater benefits. Free trade does not guarantee democracy and causes bargaining countries to lose leverage. In order to increase their own wealth most dictatorial oligarchies welcome free trade. Once they have been accepted into the free trade arena the West no longer has any leverage on them. It is true, for example, that a sanctions regime against China would be impossible to implement but that does not mean we should concede entirely. We should reinstate MFN as a lever and use it to force China to improve upon its human rights record. To believe that free trade can lead to democratization is naïve. It is far too hopeful to suggest that the wealth produced thereby will be allowed to filter down to the people. For example, pervasive poverty still persists in China[1]. In reality free trade has acted as a mechanism to worsen the living standards of the people in China as profits are concentrated in the business sector, and people are subject to terrible working conditions and low wages[2]. As this continues, China also suppresses the voice of the people and censors the internet[3]. Trade liberalization has clearly not made a China a democracy, and thus cannot be declared a more successful policy option than sanctions. [1] Wall Street Journal (2009), "Facts About Poverty in China Challenge Conventional Wisdom", [Accessed June 10, 2011]. [2] Roberts, Dexter (2007), "China's Widening Income Gap", Bloomberg News, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. [3] Ramzy, Austin (2011), "State Stamps Out Small 'Jasmine' Protests in China", Time Magazine, [Accessed June, 10 2011]. |
44 | 62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00007-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Parody Election I ACCEPT AND CHOOSE TO BE ASH KETCHUM :D You may state your case, sir Edward Cullen..... |
42 | d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a "Team Sport". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a "Team Sport", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for "faking". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :) |
39 | 77de8255-2019-04-18T18:29:30Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Government was the primary cause of the great depression (Sources@comments) The question at hand is whether or not the government was the primary cause of the great depression. In arguing that it is I will, of course, talk about how government caused the initial fall in the economy from 1929-1932. But of more importance is the discussion of how the policies that followed created an environment that stopped the economy from recovering for more than a decade. After all, recessions had come and gone many times in American history prior to the great depression. What made this one different was that the government attempted to intervene into the economy in a way never seen before. The results were disastrous. Monetary Policy: The federal reserve first contributed to the great depression by fueling the speculative bubble that led to the stock market crash of 1929. From 1921 to 1929 we see a 61 percent increase in the money supply and yet no increase in currency in circulation (Rothbard 93). One thus sees then that the expansion was in credit nor currency. One can further see that a substantial cause of this expansion was a rise in the prominence of time deposits in commercial banks which, under, and because of, the regulation of the federal reserve, had a lesser reserve requirement than the previously more popular demand deposits(Rothbard 99-100). More over, the expansion was led by an increase in total reserves which was not only caused by federal reserves policies, but in fact overpowered the deflationary pressure exerted by reserves outside of the fed's control(Rothbard 108). We also see that the treasury increased the money supply, via the purchase of silver, by some 211 million dollars (Rothbard 117). All of this loose credit allowed leveraged speculation that was ultimately put an end to in 1929. Thus the fed led the credit induced boom in the stock market. It is no surprise then that it was key in ending it. The fed, frightened by an unsustainable stock boom as-well the outflow of gold from the united states into Europe (Smiley), decreased total reserves by $261 million in 1928 (Rothbard 160). On top of this, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate and tightened credit in the stock market.(Rothbard 165-166). The picture drawn here then is one of the Fed fueling a credit induced speculative bubble and then going out of its way to make that bubble pop. Once the depression began the Fed allowed the money supply to contract sharply (Wheelock 11) and allowed its real discount rate to rise in order to halt gold outflow (Fisherback 5). Thus the often noted bank panics of the early depression which took the 1932 bank holiday to stop (Smiley). To its credit the fed did begin to engage in open market operations in 1932, but, in the words of the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, it was too little too late (Fisherback 7). Following 1932 the Fed led a more sensible, though still much too timid, policy. The economy as a whole was improving as the 30's progressed. That is, until the fed, and others, had a sudden change of heart in 1937. Due to absurd fears of inflation the federal reserve DOUBLED reserve requirements (Smiley). Not surprisingly this, in conjunction with bad fiscal policy, caused a second recession in 1937 which saw unemployment shoot up 7 full percentage points in a year (Smiley). Fiscal Policy: Now that I have addressed monetary policy I can move on to fiscal policy. The place to start, of course, is Herbert Hoover. Herbert hoover did a great number of things to harm the economy in the early 1930's. In 1930 he passed the Smoot Hawley Tarrif which doubled taxes on import, and contributed heavily to a 66% fall in imports between 1929 and 1933 (Fisherback 27). Perhaps even worse, Hoover raised taxes in 1932, thus further dampening aggregate demand (Smiley). But Hoover's greatest attack on prosperity came in his actions towards wages. He help a conference which ensured that industrial wages would be kept stable (Ohanian 8). Due to deflation, nominally stable wages actually entailed an increase in real wages in the first years of the depression (Ohanian 29). During this time period industrial production fell by 34%. compared to total factory productivity which only fell 5%. We can make sense of this only if we look at hours worked which fell by 40%, no doubt due to the artificially high wages imposed by hoover (Ohanian 3-4). Hoover further raised the cost of labor by requiring all federally aided projects to pay the union wage with the davis-beacon act of 1931 (Horwitz 5). If that wasn't enough he passed The Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932. This act gave unprecedented power to unions and even went as far as to make union-free labor contracts unenforceable in federal courts (Baird). Given hoovers destruction of aggregate demand via tariffs and taxes in conjunction with his artificial increases in real wages and the sharp contraction of the money supply allowed by the fed is it any surprise that our economy looked like it did in 1933? Now for Roosevelt. Roosevelt's first offense is his policy towards labor. He passed the Wagner act in 1935 which gave the unions even greater power. They could now force collective bargaining, and an employer could now longer engage in the practice of choosing to hire non union workers (1). It further allow union workers to force non union works of the same firm into a union with a majority vote thus allowing unions to monopolize labor (Smiley). Fdr also, of course, created social security and with it a new tax on labor in 1936 (Smiley). The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brings into existence the minimum wage as-well as forced overtime pay (2). These policies in conjunction, not unlike hoovers, massively discouraged firms from purchasing labor. Next we have the NIRA. The NIRA was implemented by Roosevelt in-order to fight competition. In purposely instituted monopolies and oligopolies, kept prices high, and restricted output (Cole and Ohanian). It would be difficult to think of a policy which would have a greater negative effect on the efficiency of the market. Fortunately though, it was declared unconstitutional in 1935. Then we have 1937. As I have noted elsewhere, the economy took a turn for the worse in the recession of 1937 after having progressed forward in the years prior. And while this is partly to blame on the federal reserve for doubling reserve requirements Roosevelt also shares in responsibility. In 1936 Roosevelt, in the midst of the great depression, tried to balance the budget. He did this by increasing taxes. He upped taxes to such a degree that income tax revenues increased by 66% from 1936 to 1937 (Velde 19). As a result of such policies we see that government had collected 57% more total revenue in 1940 than in 1927 (Higgs 573). The exact opposite of how tax policy should work in an economic slump. And lastly we have the psychological affect of FDP's policies. He caused what is known as regime uncertainty. He left investors worried about the future of the market. Would FDR create a primarily government run economy in the near future? Would new taxes be introduced? Polls from the time period show that many businessmen were unsure (Higgs 577-578) and that they were consciously aware of the fact that this uncertainty, caused by the policies of FDR, was stopping business from expanding (Higgs 577). After all, why would one make an investment that would reap its profits 5 years from now when one is unsure if profits will substantially exist 5 years from now! This hypothesis helps explain the fact that private investment took a huge fall in the 1930's that didn't sustainably recover until 1946 long after FDR's rain and the age of the New Deal. Thus FDR's policies of increased taxes, making labor artificially expensive, creating regime uncertainty, and purposeful contraction of industrial output, helped to create the great depression. One can see then that government caused demand to fall, MS to contract and Unemployment to rise for over a de |
47 | 6013445a-2019-04-18T15:28:44Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework is a waste of time "-> By improving his linguistic skills the student is developing an ability he will use on multiple subjects, including future ones. By contrast, homework is solely subject-specific and therefore by comparison a waste of time." Your point does not solely disprove the relation between homework and linguistic skills. If a maths word problem was given to a student. He would have to use his linguistic skills to properly diferrentiate what the problem wanted him to solve. Thus he can further use this skill to apply this to a variety of subjects such as science and comprehension. "Then students will take a practice sheet, homework, and practice the step they learn in class. They do not need to fully understand the subtleties of the word problems but merely to copy what they learned in class." One must have an understanding of the underlying theories of the problem. For example, 1+1= 2 requires you to have an understanding of addition and numerical values. If homework is not designed to teach students theories. They are designed to apply theories in class and apply them practically, which is a vital skill to be learnt. "-> You source is not academic, it just a random website you found by looking for something to supports your perspectives on the internet." Changeminds is an organisation, this itself should add some credibility to the quote. As i cannot verify that the 2 sources u state are accurate (my browser does not seem to want to open the page) Your opinion about psychometrics being unreliable should be backed with a valid source to prove that its invalid. The quote is actually from William Glasser, a qualified American psychiatrist. (2) A psychiatrist quotes are still relevant as the quote refers to the brains capacity to process and store information when looking through books.(1) "One this websites two sources is "Dale E. 1969. Cone of experience, in Educational Media: Theory into Practice" which is a 45 year old article about how to put a PAST theory in practice. It is not putting a theory forth or testing it but merely assuming it to be true." As you have not put any sources forward disproving the theory, the theory itself is still sound. "This is why reading the textbook is more important as it will give the student the rational behind the course material thus making it easier for him distinguish the different problems." As I've said before in previous rounds, you are assuming that students will simply memorize and understand the theory just by reading the concept in a textbook. This theory is backed by the quote from WIlliam Glasser. Conclusion Opponents arguments Homework is a waste of time because: A students time is better spent doing other things then doing homework Their time is better spent developing social skills. Students only use a small portion of their knowledge in the workforce My arguments Homework isn't a waste of time because: It helps put theories into practical activities. Doing homework leads to better grades which then leads to better job Reinforces good perseverance habits My successfully rebutted points included Social skills do not contribute to a better job A student's time is better spent doing homework over other activities (such as healthy eating) Shout out to my opponent who respectfully debated his topic and (with the exception of the forefeit) a very intriguing debate. (1) http://thinkexist.com... (2) https://www.google.com.au... |
6 | c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College is a Necessity to be Successful The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It" by Andrew J. Rotherham "College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans." College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates. |
19 | c015ffd5-2019-04-18T18:13:51Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal in the United States I apologize for having to make these arguments that my opponent will not have a chance to respond to. Unfortunately, because of the change in arguments on the last round on his part, I am forced to do this. If, like Pro has said, gay marriage is currently legal as part of United States federal law, then I have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed so that gay marriage is not legal. If, however, I can prove that legal gay marriage is not currently part of federal law, then Pro would have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed. In this round I will show how gay marriage is not legal under federal law. The other option my opponent has argued for in the previous round is that the Constitution should be changed to make sure that gay marriage is legal if I can prove that it is not already. Because he bears the BoP in this case, I contend that he has not provided good enough reason to take this power from the states. So at this point all I must do in order to win this debate is to prove that gay marriage is not currently legal. Legal in the United States was accepted at the beginning of the debate as federal law. The definition of federal law which was included in that definition is: " the supreme law of the land. "If legal gay marriage was the supreme law of the land in the United States, then all states would be required to allow gay marriage. Obviously states do not have to make gay marriage legal according to the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment does not make marriage legal. Instead, it defers this power to the states. So it is legal for the states to make gay marriage legal. It is also legal for the states to make gay marriage illegal. So gay marriage is not legal in the United States which would mean that it was the supreme law of the land. What is legal is for states to decide. So although it is permitted by law, the agreed upon definition of legal, it is not federal law, the more recent agreed upon definition of legal in the United States. Conclusion: Same sex marriage is not currently legal in the United States under federal law. Same sex marriage is only a civil right in some jurisdictions in the United States. My opponent has not provided a substantial reason why the states should not be allowed to maintain the power to decide for themselves. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BoP by showing that my opponent did not fulfill his. |
39 | 1b0e765b-2019-04-18T18:27:14Z-00007-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Labor Unions Labor unions are determinal for the economy. They increase overall unemployment and increase the prices of regular consumer products. How do they increase overall unemployment? Simple. A business has revenues and costs. The business uses the revenue to pay off the cost, and the remaining money (if there is any) is profit. Unions forceibly raise wages for employees. This raises the amount of cost they pay, which reduces their profit, and a lot of times forces the company to endure a loss. If the business is incurring a loss, they are forced to either reduce costs or increase revenue. The only ways to reduce costs is to shrink the company, which will inevitably result in the loss of jobs, or to directly reduce the amount of employment, which of course raises unemployment. The only way to increase revenue is to increase the costs of products, which in the long run will not work as the demand curve will shift to the left, resulting in negligable increase in revenue. "It is simple economics. If labor costs are higher than the market determines they should be, after taking into account all other factors that make up production, then workers will be laid off or their compensation will be decreased. The "greedy capitalists" (derisively called "management" by the unions) aren't the culprits for wage pressure. It is ultimately the consumers of products who are the drivers of wages, not management."[1] "By restricting the number of eligible workers in an industry, unions essentially decrease the labor supply, shifting the labor supply curve upward. As a result, the existence of unions increases the average wage above the level that would naturally occur in the market. Yet the intersection of the new labor supply and demand curves also occurs at a lower employment level. Thus, there is a higher level of unemployment, as essentially businesses can afford to hire fewer workers at the elevated wage."[2] "Raises the wages of workers above the market clearing level and creates a situation in which there are more people who want to work at the wage than there are firms who want to hire at the wage. In this way, labor unions increase the wages and benefits of workers who are employed, but may simultaneously increase the number of workers who are unemployed."[3] "It has been a well-established fact that unions reduce the numbers of employed workers by mandating wages that move in an ever increasing upward spiral. (The average union wage is 28% higher than a non-union wage). In such situations, cash for hiring new workers diminishes as does cash for R&D and capital improvements."[4] How do they raise consumer prices? I mentioned this earlier, so I will just use sources. "Furthermore, those high union-mandated wages result in increased prices for manufactured goods. It has long been an established fact that as labor costs increase, demand for consumer goods diminishes and the pool of consumers shrinks."[4] "if unions successfully raise the price of labor, employers will purchase less of it. Thus, unions are a major anticompetitive force in labor markets. Their gains come at the expense of consumers, nonunion workers, the jobless, taxpayers, and owners of corporations."[5] More reasons labor unions are bad: "How are our guys supposed to compete when the Japanese, Korean, and others don't have to wrangle with greedy, thug union bosses over guaranteed, absurdly high wages, pensions, and health benefits? In Japan, the labor market functions like any other commodity market. That's why their cars are affordable and their companies are profitable."[6] "Labor unions tend to be inclusive. Those who choose to join the union gain all the benefits, but it may be at the expense of those who aren't members. That can cause strife within a company where certain employees, based on their job duties, are offered membership, while other employees have to work in conditions not quite as favorable. Corporations find that having a labor union within the company is not cost effective. Other employee salaries are kept at minimum wage or there are no health benefits due to the high cost of employing labor union members."[7] "By raising the price of labour, the wage rate, above the equilibrium price, unemployment rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those laborers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions. As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to reduce unemployment."[8] "One 1951 study found that instead of harming profits, unions increase the wages of about 10–15% of workers by reducing the wages of the remaining 85–90% of workers."[8] "If unions succeed in wage hikes, and employers raise the prices they charge consumers to maintain their own profit margins, and the supply of money remains the same, then something else has to "give." Either the prices of goods and services in nonunion sectors have to fall and offset the union sector hikes, or people's cash balances need to fall, in terms of their purchasing power."[9] "The analysis finds small impacts on all outcomes that we examine; estimates for wages are close to zero."[10] ==Final Conclusion== As shown, unions either raise unemployment or increase prices (depending on the individual business's choice). They increase the costs businesses incur and must resort to these methods in order to return to their normal budget. But they also encourage sloth and laziness by employees. They also are getting rather useless as new federal policies replace their jobs and duties. ==Sources== [1]:http://www.minyanville.com... [2]:http://www.ehow.com... [3]:http://www.sparknotes.com... [4]:http://stephencabotblog.com... [5]:http://www.econlib.org... [6]:http://therightrant.blogspot.com... [7]:http://www.corporatehx.com... [8]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]:http://mises.org... [10]:http://www.economist.com... |
27 | 25f87e03-2019-04-18T16:22:01Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun control is a stupid idea I'll keep it short and sweet. 7 of your 8 sources were from a website with the name "gunpolicy." I can provide just as many sources using a website named "gunfreedom" except you wouldn't expect that website to produce unbiased statistics. The truth is that gun control statistics vary wildly depending on the source and how the information is displayed given the context of the information. Gun control statistics have been debated wildly with conflicting results from each side. Laws are restrictions and could serve as subtle removal of freedoms. Over the course of Nazi Germany the Nazi's leveraged existing gun control laws to round up the Jews and other minorities that they despised without a threat The constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms as a personal right because the founding fathers recognized the threat of tyranny and the need for self-defense. The threat of tyranny still exists in our modern world today and is a very valid reason for having the rights to own and use a gun. "So, here's my question: how is the right to bear arms affected by gun control? People are still allowed to bear arms, but not any kind. I mean, my opponent most certainly does not include nuclear arms in the "right to bear arms"? So, why the fixation on firearms?" When the founding fathers wrote the constitution no nuclear arms existed and it's common sense to recognize firearms or any other kind of weaponry for that matter is within your right to have. Gun control commits the fallacy of assuming that guns in circulation will be eliminated once gun control laws are enacted. They won't. They'll be in the hands of criminals who disobey the law and out of the hands of the vast majority of responsible gun owners. Consider this: imagine you're a druggie and need money. The town you live in allow guns but the town right next to you doesn't. Would you rather rob a store in your hometown or go right next door the the one that poses a much lesser threat and more successful chance of getting away with robbery? Police can't be there the moment you are confronted with somebody posing a threat to your life. Guns are self-defense for the vast majority of responsible gun owners, protection from the threat of tyranny, and common sense to acknowledge guns won't be removed from circulation once gun control laws are enacted. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.