query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
14 | 2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology 1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! http://www.scienceofrelationships.com... Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not. |
8 | 6702bd9b-2019-04-18T17:04:32Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal OK! Accept my apologies! Haa! Totally agree with you though! SOO many reasons can be put forward! |
40 | e03e7a42-2019-04-18T14:35:21Z-00007-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Hello all. In this debate, I will present several key arguments in opposition to the institution of capital punishment, or the death penalty. I will specifically refer to the situation in the United States.I believe the death penalty is a stain on American society. It shows that we are not as morally or fiscally concerned as we should be. I will attempt to show this with these three arguments.I. The Death Penalty is UnjustThe job of our government should be to eliminate injustice to promote prestige and a morally concerned society. However, with the existence of the death penalty, the government is failing to live up to this role. My argument to prove that the death penalty is unjust is as follows:Definitionsrevenge: the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. (Google)just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. (Google)Argument1) The death penalty is based on revenge (as defined above).2) Revenge is immoral.3) Therefore, the death penalty is immoral. (From 1, 2)4) The death penalty is unjust. (From 3)On Premise 1The death penalty is based on revenge, as it is inflicting death upon criminals that inflict pain and suffering on others, instituted by the federal/state governments (I am referring specifically to the situation in the US in this debate).On Premise 2Revenge is widely considered to be immoral. The premise of revenge is to inflict near, identical, or even excessively more pain than the criminal caused the victim, and that is just escalating the amount of immoral action (think Gandhi's eye-for-an-eye principle).On Premise 3The death penalty, because it is based on an immoral principle (revenge), is an immoral practice.On Premise 4As 'just' includes the condition of moral fairness and righteousness, the death penalty can be concluded to be unjust.II. The Death Penalty is ExpensiveThe process of capital trial, containment on death row and eventual execution is more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for life, as proven in numerous surveys. [1] This is clearly unfair for taxpayers, who end up paying a lot more than they would otherwise (if criminals that would be indicted of capital punishment would instead be sentenced to life in prison, the cheaper and more moral answer).III. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter CrimeCountless studies have shown that the existence of capital punishment as a penalty for serious crime does not add on to the deterrence effect of prolonged time in prison. Another study has shown that there is no correlation between the death penalty's institution and the murder of police officers.In fact, in states without the death penalty, there are lower rates of crime. Therefore, it is clear that the death penalty does not deter crime or add any sort of effectiveness to the fight against crime. [2]---------------------ConclusionFor all these reasons, it is clear that the death penalty should be abolished. First, it is clearly an immoral principle and should be treated as such; it is wrong for our government to institute a principle against basic morals. Second, the institution of capital punishment, capital trial and containment on death row awaiting execution costs substantially more than life in prison. Third, the death penalty is not shown to deter crime, or have any effect on the murder of police officers or the crime rate, in fact, states that have abolished the death penalty have lower rates of crime.It is resolved that the death penalty ought to be abolished.---------------------Sources[1] http://deathpenalty.org...;[2] http://deathpenalty.org......I affirm that both of these sources are credible, and are publications of veritable studies and data compiled by professionals. |
47 | 1733bebd-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework One more round? If no arguments are posted I'll post mine in the final round to solidify my case. |
29 | cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00005-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org....... |
16 | 42468ac1-2019-04-18T19:48:35Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults. I disagree. In fact, I think that all drugs should be illegal, except for prescription drugs/drugs used by hospitals to treat patients. |
2 | f08ced27-2019-04-18T15:30:33Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking should be banned Ok, 1. Pro said about "The government has right to limit what people do to their bodies" is silly thing. Like what I said before, this is personal right. Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. Another reason to oppose the current campaign against smokers is because it violates the legitimate rights of smokers. John Stuart Mill, in a slender book published in 1859 titled On Liberty, wrote: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. This is the basic premise of libertarianism, the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. Mill statement is directly applicable to the controversy over smoking. Quite simply, a just government does not have the authority to ban smoking on private property or to tell smokers to quit or to punish them if they do not. Smokers are adults, not children, and they deserve to have their informed choices respected by others. If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day? So, if government has right to limit what people do to their bodies, directly government will too much interfere. They will limit what food that should we eat maybe worst, government will handle the time to us sleep for our healthy. Can you imagine how suck is that? Pro failed broke my arguments about smoker's rights. 2. Second-hand Smoke Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans? The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3. An important report on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997. "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. "The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. "It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day, according to Enstrom and Kabat. "If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible. 3. Business Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more serious crime. Smoking bans violate the private property rights of individuals. The owners of bars, restaurants, and other businesses should be free to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments and what kinds of accommodations to make for nonsmokers. Their customers should decide how important it is to be able to smoke or to experience a smoke-free environment. People often include smoking to the list of pleasurable activities they enjoy when dining out or visiting a bar. Banning smoking at these establishments may make people less likely to visit, which can hurt the business owners if smokers make up a large percentage of their customers. On the other hand, potential patrons who may have avoided a location because smoking was allowed may now visit a business because of the lack of irritating smoke. 4. Taxing Smokers Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $1.01 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $1.36 per pack, for a total of $2.37 per pack. Some cities and states impose far higher taxes. The combined state-local tax rate in Chicago is $6.16 per pack, and in New York City it is $5.85 per pack. Cigarette taxes also are an inefficient and unreliable way to raise funds for government. Excise taxes require relatively high rates to raise funds, creating opportunities and incentives for evasion and the transfer of economic activity to states with lower taxes. Dramatic price hikes and extreme taxes on cigarettes are threatening to create a stampede of tax evasion, black-market transactions, counterfeiting, and even use of lethal violence against convenience store clerks and truck drivers. Recent tax hikes adopted by New York, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere threaten to take us to a neoprohibitionist era with all the crime, expenses, and loss of respect for law enforcement that accompanied Prohibition. Excise taxes are also regressive. People with low incomes not only pay a higher percentage of their incomes on cigarette taxes than do wealthier people, they even pay more in absolute terms. Persons earning less than $10,000 paid an average of $81 a year in tobacco taxes, versus $49 for those who make $50,000 or more. This was before recent massive tax hikes! Finally, excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators. 5. Solution In April 2014, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a report summarizing a survey of more than 19,000 past and present users of electronic cigarettes "" the largest survey of its kind to date. Here is what the survey found: Electronic cigarettes helped 81% of the survey respondents quit smoking. Among those who had not quit entirely, one-third were non-daily smokers, and the rest had decreased consumption from 20 cigarettes to 4 per day. Smokers primarily begin using electronic cigarettes for harm reduction and to reduce second-hand smoke exposure to family members. Electronic cigarettes appear to be effective even in highly-dependent smokers. Side effects are minor and reported health benefits are substantial. Unfortunately, some public health organizations and lobbying groups have made a business out of opposing smoking. If electronic cigarettes solve many of the problems that come from smoking tobacco, their """business" may be hurt. This conflict of interest means they will be among the last to admit that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative for smokers. So, government should not banned smoking. If they worry about people healthy, smoker can choose to use electronic cigarettes. But still,government can't force them to stop smoking. That is their right to choose. |
6 | d52c7da7-2019-04-18T14:31:40Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | God doesn't exist I will post my argument in this round, and rebut Pro's argument in the next. Key: I will be using multiple logic symbols in this debate which will be useful for me to demonstrate modal expressions. This acts as a key for all the logic symbols I use. <> 'possibly; is logically possible that' [] 'necessarily; is not logically possible that not that' p-->q 'if p, then q' ~ 'not' G the proposition 'God exists' C1) Modal ontological argument I shall be using the modal ontological argument, an ontological argument predicated on the nature of modality, for God's existence. The definition of God here is one with all properties mentioned, along with the property of necessary existence, i.e. where G β []G. 1) If p can be perceived, then p is logically possible 2) God can be perceived P1: It is logically possible that God exists 3) If God exists, God is a necessary being 4) If God does not have necessary existence, then God necessarily does not exist 5) God's non-existence, if true, is solely contingent P2: If God is true in one possible world, then God is necessarily true in all possible worlds 6) The actual world is a possible world 7) If God has necessary existence, then God exists C: Therefore, God exists The argument phrased in modus ponens form: a) If God exists in one possible world, God exists in all possible worlds b) God exists in one possible world C: Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds a) God is Necessary The premise: "If God exists in one possible world, then God exists." We must first understand what a 'possible world' is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, "[T]hings, as a whole, needn't have been just as they are. Rather, things might have been different in countless ways, both trivial and profound. In any case, no matter how things had gone they would still have been part of a single, maximally inclusive, all-encompassing situation, a single world. β¦ Intuitively, then, the actual world β¦ is just one among many possible worlds." [1] From this, we can conclude that there are multiple situations that described how the world could have been, and each situation depicts one among infinite possible worlds. There are also situations that the world can't have 'been' as such, since they would entail contradictions. But if <>p, then we can conclude that p exists in at least one possible world [2]. Now, if p existed in all possible worlds, then []p, meaning ~<>~p. Now, take the proposition G, i.e. the proposition 'God exists'. With the law of the excluded middle, one can reasonably assert that either []G or ~[]G [3]. Becker's postulate also concludes that ~[]G β []~G [4]. Since God is defined as "necessary being", if God does not have necessary existence, he necessarily does not exist. If something is "necessary", then it is true in all possible worlds. But since God's existence remains possible, it is true in some possible world, which means God doesn't necessarily not exist, which, from Becker's postulate and modus tollens, allows us to conclude that if God exists in at least one possible world, God is necessary. b) Possibility of God Premise two is defended from Sankara's dictum [5], which states that if p can be perceived, then <>p. If p is considered 'possible', then it does not entail a logical contradiction, i.e. is logically possible. When p does entail a logical contradiction, when the contradiction is realized, p cannot be perceived, due to Russell and Whitehead 1910's proposition that known as the Law of Non-Contradiction [6], which entails that if []q and p is an unproved proposition that contradicts q, then ~p. The link here is that God can be perceived, and entails no contradiction. Therefore, God is logically possible. The conclusion entails from the premises from modus ponens. C2) Argument from idealism I shall be defending the position that there is a consciousness that grounds reality--therefore, there is a being that grounds reality and rules it, thus acting as its creator. Since reality defines 'power', and the being exercises control over reality, that being is 'all powerful'. Therefore, it fits the definition of God. If reality is mental, then a mind controls it by definition, thus I shall affirm that reality itself is a mental product. a) The mind is not physical, and is mental b) If X is mental, it cannot interact with something which is not mental C1: Minds cannot interact with anything non-mental c) The mind interacts with reality C2: Therefore, reality is mental, and requires a mind to ground it a) Minds are Mental First, it is known that the 'mind' is something that exists. As Descartes put it, "Cogito ergo sum" [7], or "I think; therefore, I exist." To doubt the existence of the mind itself requires a mind. With this, I shall affirm that a mind is not physical. If a mind is physical, then metaphysical solipsism is logically impossible, i.e. exists in no possible world, thus is necessarily untrue. Metaphysical solipsism is the position that the mind is all that exists [8]. If the mind is made of matter or energy, then it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from it, which it would under solipsism. Is solipsism metaphysically possible? A proposition p is metaphysically possible iff it entails no logical contradiction. From Sankara's dictum, something is metaphysically possible if: (1) it is not prima facie impossible, and (2) it is conceivable and can be perceived [9]. Consider this diagram I borrowed from Zmikecuber: Therefore, minds are neither matter nor energy, meaning they are 'mental', and physicalism or materialism is false. b) Interaction With the Physical If q is mental, then q cannot interact with y if y is 'physical'. Interaction between q and y assumes that dualism is true, therefore I shall refute dualism to affirm this premise. Under substance dualism, the mental and the physical are different, and the mind does not interact with reality. But consider the ability to make a choice--this refutes substance dualism. Now, move on to property dualism, which holds that while mind and reality are separate, they can interact with each other, because the mind is a property of a physical. The problem is, this runs into non-cognitivism. If the mind is a property of the physical, it only acts as a relational attribute, therefore cannot exist independently--the mind as property of the physical means the mind is to the physical as '40lbs' is to a rabbit that weighs that much. But solipsism is possible, so the mind is not a relational attribute. c) Interaction With Reality The mind does interact with reality. When I make a choice to touch something that is actually real, the mind tells me to touch it, thus the mind interacts with reality. Additionally, I can feel pain due to physical effects. The conclusion entails. There is a mind that grounds reality--an all-powerful spirit that is the creator and ruler of the universe. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://web.stanford.edu... 4. http://legacy.earlham.edu... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Principia Mathematica, 116-117. Cambridge: 1910. 7. https://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 9. http://alexanderpruss.com... |
17 | b9e1a102-2019-04-18T17:32:22Z-00003-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal Thank you for your argument. Here's my response: #1) Using"Using marijuana can increase your risks of getting cancer. While research is still being done as to what the exact effects marijuana can have on the body current research suggests that marijuana has similar effects of tobacco. Tobacco leads to lung cancer. Why would you want to increase your chances of getting lung cancer?"Yes, but tobacco is legal. We also know that eating too much junk food is bad for you. But we can still do it. And that is a good thing. Why?Because everyone has the right to live his life the way he wants to, as long as he doesn't damage or endanger others. If everyone lived in a perfect way, and didn't do anything stupid, we wouldn't need liberty. But liberty is there for those who would like to do things differently, and even do things that are bad for you.So, is marijuana bad for you? Well, at some points. It is not that addictive, only to a small group of people, and if you don't use it heavily, you won't get addicted. It is also known that it is virtually impossible to die from a marijuana overdose (of course, theoretically it is, because everything is technically poisonous). You can die from an overdose of alcohol, tobacco, and sugar. It also doesn't make you violent, like alcohol. It doesn't make you fat, like junk food. And in some cases, it is even used as a medicine! So yes, I would agree that it is bad for you, but, it isn't worse than alcohol, which is legal. http://brown.edu...;http://www.bbc.co.uk..."Also, many are aware of the fact that marijuana is a "Gateway" drug which can lead to the use of many other much more addictive drugs such as Crack/ Cocaine, Heroine , etc. No bueno."False, there has not been such research. The only thing we know is that there is a correlation between the use of marijuana and the later use of other more harmful drugs. But, correlation does not imply causation. For example, we know that all murderers have drunk water before committing there crime. Does this mean that water is a gateway to murdering? #2) Growing"So as crazy as it sounds growing marijuana is actually bad for the environment. You learn something knew every day right? It has something to do with the fact that its grown inside according to this article "the nation's indoor marijuana crop has the same annual carbon footprint as 3 million cars." Ew....The article goes on to explain how this might push the government to legalize pot so it can be grown outside however that would probably just increase crime rate (people would probably start trespassing into people's backyards in attempt to get free pot.)" We should allow growing marijuana outside, and it won't be that bad for the environment. And if you legalize marijuana, crime rates will actually drop. A lot of people go to jail only for using, growing, or selling pot. Which isn't morally wrong. And the trespassing problem won't even be that big. Because, like in Holland or Spain, people who would like to use the stuff will just grow it in their own garden. This will be possible, because prices will drop. This is because all the costs of avoiding the police, which are high as your article just showed, are eventually paid by the consumer. #3) Selling"So, I know this argument isn't supposed to go into too much detail in terms of constitutions and stuff but in most States its still illegal to sell pot so why even risk it ? Ask yourself this question: do you really wanted to be arrested?Here are some other questions to ask yourself about selling and you'll soon find that it simply ain't worth it."You wouldn't be arrested if selling was legal. So this argument is invalid (since the debate is about whether it should be legalized)"Also, going back to pot being the "gateway drug" its sort of the same for selling. Start selling weed first and it can lead to selling other drugs which leads to addiction/ getting you into WAY more trouble."You know what happens when selling is legalized? It will be sold by the shops. And do you really think these shops will risk having to close their shops? #4) Possessing"So, its kind of hard to get into this one without bringing up the constitution. Since weed is still illegal in many places it does create a reason to arrest someone. Violent acts of resistance have been linked to people who posses pot."That's why you should legalize it. You will not have the problem of violent arrests if you don't have to arrest them. Life can be so easy, right?# The ethical problemGrowing a plant itself is not immoral, possessing it isn't either. Using something bad to yourself is your own personal choice. People can only be free and be their selves if they are allowed to live there just the way they want to (however, if this prevents others from living theirs, there should be restrictions). And because marijuana isn't really that harmful, selling also is not wrong. So how can it be ethically acceptable to punish someone for it? |
49 | 5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions." Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position. |
5 | ceed40d0-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Nazism is a more effective government than Communism Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reich |
44 | 337b3aee-2019-04-18T16:22:29Z-00003-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory I affirm the resolution Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Definitions Ought - "used to indicate duty or correctness." (Oxford Dictionaries Online) Compulsory Voting " A system of elections in which citizens who have the right and means to vote are required by law to vote. Nonvoters in this system face fines. Democracy " "government by the people; especially": rule of the majority" (Merriam-Webster online) Equality " "the state of being equal, especially in having the same rights, status,"and opportunities" (MacMillan Dictionary) My value"will be democracy, defined earlier as a government by the people. This value is appropriate because the resolution is a question of how to uphold democracy. It is important because a democratic government should uphold the principle of the "rule of the majority" as strongly as possible. My"criterion"will be equality. Equality is an important pillar of democracy that compulsory voting strengthens by ensuring that all individuals get a voice in government. Without it, democracy cannot exist because certain groups may face disenfranchisement as a result. Note: In this system, all ballots will have an option of "none of the above." This option is intended to protect the right not to vote. Checking this option is still meaningful to candidates because it shows that there are a number of votes that are still up for grabs, and if politicians address the needs of the groups who tend to pick this option, they can persuade those individuals to vote for them. Contention 1: Low Voter Turnout Threatens Democracy a."Low Turnout Threatens Majority Rule Low voter turnout is an issue in many democratic countries. Even worse is that with each passing generation, the average turnout is dropping steadily. The United States is a perfect example of this. Jason"Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3 First, I will present the facts."Voter turnout has fallen significantly during the past several decades."Most"estimates show a decline of ten to fifteen points for turnout in both presidential and non-presidential elections from the 1960s to today."The official numbers from the U.S. Census report turnout at 69.3% in 1964 and at 58.3% in 2004, which was up from the low of 54.2% in 1996. The drop in turnout looks better or worse depending on how one crunches the numbers, but the bottom line is that"turnout in the past several decades has declined in most advanced democracies with the United"States at the"bottom of the pack among this group in terms of overall turnout. Some may be satisfied with the fact that turnout is up so far this decade in comparison to the last decade. However, it is imprudent to depend on once-in-a-lifetime campaigns or political events to mobilize voters. If the goal is sustained, high turnout nationally among all demographic groups should increase. In a democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people that decide the outcomes of elections and influential policy decisions. If voter turnout is low, then it"s possible that the so-called majority could actually be a minority of the population making decisions for the entire population. This goes against the very definition of democracy as the rule of the people. Compulsory voting fixes this problem by increasing voter turnout. Australia is an example of how compulsory voting has been successful. Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 Academic analysis shows that"compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters,"wherever it is used. "There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for"Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. "The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since. "A similar drop in Australia would amount to about 1.5 million fewer voters in a national election. In the older democracies that have voluntary voting, the turnout has usually been in the order of 70 to 80 percent, though in recent elections such countries have actually experienced a marked decline in turnout." "Compulsory voting solves this problem by giving individuals an equal say in their government. More people go out to vote, and as a result, the majority actually rules. As a result, the decisions of the democracy become more legitimate because the results are being decided by a majority of the entire population, not just the majority of the portion of the population that decided to vote. The equality in status that compulsory voting provides makes the decisions that people make for the democracy more legitimate, which thus upholds democracy. b."Low Voter Turnout Creates an Unrepresentative Democracy Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 23 An election can be thought of as a political census in which near universal participation is required to generate political decisions that are an accurate reflection of what the population actually wants."When less than two-thirds of the electorate goes to the polls, the government that results from this election typically has the expressed support of well under a third of those eligible to vote."Democratic legitimacy concerns may not weigh heavily with the ordinary voter, but they certainly do trouble the collective minds of governments, and it is no wonder that falling turnout should have generated hand-wringing among the political elite."Compulsory turnout would ensure that virtually all voices are taken into account, and that the outputs of the electoral process thus have full democratic legitimacy. Unless a true majority of the population votes, an election is illegitimate because a minority of the population is masquerading itself as a majority. By giving all individuals equal access to ballots, this problem can be corrected because the voices of all individuals would be taken into account. This is the only way to ensure a legitimate democracy; a democracy cannot represent the people unless all voices are accounted for. Contention 2: The Status Quo Creates an Imbalance of Power Skewed Towards the Wealthy It has also been shown that there are large gaps in voter turnout between different socioeconomic groups. Studies have shown that wealthier individuals are much more likely to vote than those who are impoverished. Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 22 The gap in turnout between socio-economic groups is"less pronounced, but still"alarmingly large: depending on the measure of socio-economic status employed, it ranges from 13 to 16 per cent between those at the lowest and those at the highest rungs of the ladder"(Keaney and Rogers 2006). These figures suggest that"there is a serious inclusivity problem associated with electoral politics. As long as the poor don"t vote, politicians will not spend much time addressing their needs because they are unlikely to vote. Instead, they will cater to the needs of the middle class and the wealthy because they will likely make up the majority of the people who vote. As a result, the status quo has a system of elections that is biased towards wealthier individuals. This leads to policies that are skewed towards these groups because the politicians are catering to them so that they can guarantee their vote in the future. If compulsory voting is instilled, this problem will be solved because now, everyone is voting. As a result, politicians will address to the needs of these disenfranchised groups, which leads to equality amongst all groups because policies will be passed which fairly benefit both the wealthy and those in poverty, which benefits democracy by taking into account the voices of all groups of people. Democracy is also enhanced when this happens because a key principle of democracy is that the government serves the people. In this case, compulsory voting serves the people by reducing income inequality. Because the will of the people dictates that the government should do whatever it can to help the people, the will of the people dictates that the government ought to enact compulsory voting. Contention 3: Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization Political polarization occurs when political attitudes diverge towards ideological extremes. Compulsory voting can solve this problem. Eric Liu. "Why Voting Should Be Mandatory." Times."August 21,"2012. http://ideas.time.com... Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues,"it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders,"who are"exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."And"they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. Even though the evidence specifically mentions the United States, it is easy to cross-apply this analysis to other democracies. Those that have multiple parties are bound to run into this problem because in the status quo, the first goal of the parties is to get their partisan bases to vote, and whichever base gets more votes wins the election. Moderates are left out in this system. Compulsory voting eliminates this strategy because now, individuals from varied views will be voting. This equality amongst all types of political views will mean that politics will become less polarized. This is because candidates must now focus on those with moderate views that were previously left out of campaign discourse. This improves democracy because the will of all people, not just those with partisan views, is represented. For this reason as well others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today"s debate. |
8 | b18598c4-2019-04-18T17:30:42Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion I accept the challenge offered me by Pro, even though I by and large agree with Pro's argument that abortion-on-demand is not defensible, but that abortion is defensible in rare cases such as rape or the mother's life being in danger, and I never argue against that with which I agree of course (which would make no sense). I agree with the conclusion that abortion should be legal only in specific cases as well, leaving me only one thing I can disagree with here, and that less stringently, that a child should not be killed for the sake of physical abnormality. I presume this was the point Pro wished to debate with me on, since my user page makes clear that I support abortion in the case of rare circumstances such as rape and life of the mother, and possibly even as late as 12 weeks. For the sake of clarity, I will first elucidate my reasoning on abortion in general, and then explain my reasoning on the sole point of disagreement. My Views on Abortion in GeneralMy reasoning, as aditionally stated here[1], is as follows:Ultimately, right to privacy is no justification for killing another human being, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body. Right to choice does not justify choosing to harm another person, and right to one's body cannot justify using that body to harm another person. As such, rights, choices, and privacy are no excuse for harming another person if they are indeed a person, erego, this question revolves necessarily around the issue of personhood. While potential exceptions naturally exist such as rape and life of the mother, since in the case she did not make a sexual decision to be held accountable for, and when her life is endangered by the pregnancy, her life is also at stake, and she should have a choice to save her life (obviously), abortion on demand is ultimately not justifiable when a child is apparently human.Thus, this revolves around the issue of personhood and fetal viability, when a child becomes human, for if it is human, no buzzword argument is sufficient to justify its murder save in such rare circumstances. Furthermore, that such rare circumstances should be raised by those who seek to justify abortion-on-demand evidences that they themselves realize abortion can only be justified in such rare cases, and fallaciously use said cases in an attempt to justify abortion more broadly. When it comes to fetal viability, completed brain cells appear within the first 2 weeks of pregnancy. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Blood flows in the baby's veins separate from the mother's blood at 4 weeks. Brain wave activity occurs at 6 weeks. Based on nervous system development, perception of pain likely begins at 8 weeks. Thumb sucking occurs at 9 weeks. The entire body is sensitive to touch at 10 weeks. Breathing of amniotic fluid and all facial expressions visible (e.g. smiling) at 11 weeks. Crying at 12 weeks, as well as the ability to practice breathing. All senses present including vocal chords at 13 weeks.[2] The earliest recorded successful pregnancy is at 21 weeks[3] even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months of pregnancy.[4] As such, it is logical that a minimum of 18,150 abortions, 1.5% of the 1.21 million annual abortion according to Planned Parenthood's own statistics arm, the Guttmacher Institute, are murder each year, since they occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.[5]So what does public polling show the American people believe? According to Gallup[6] while 62% of Americans support abortion during the first trimester (12 week period of pregnancy), only 24% support abortion in the second trimester, and only 10% for the third trimester. 83% of Americans support abortion when the mother's life is endangered, 82% when the woman's physical health is endangered, 75% when the pregnancy was caused by rape/incest, 61% when the woman's mental health is endangered, 51% when there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired, 50% when the baby may be physically impaired, and only 36% when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child. Ultimately, 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, 39% that it should be legal only in a few circumstances, 13% that it should be legal in most circumstances, 25% that it should always be legal, and 4% hold no opinion.As such, the majority of Americans, over 75%, disagree with abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and can recognize that abortion beyond this point is clearly murder. Only 36% believe abortion justifiable when the woman or family can't afford to raise the child. There is nonetheless overwhelming recognition that abortion should be legal in rare cases such as rape or life of the mother. However, it should be pointed out that rape and life of the mother account for less than1% of all abortions[7], at least 13 states had laws allowing abortion before Roe v. Wade in such cases and the number was rapidly growing[8], and virtually all legislation put out in the last two decades by the Pro-Life movement has included exceptions for abortion in said cases.Given this, I believe the courts have incorrectly decided the issue and that the American people should have their voices heard instead as the original judge, Henry Friendly, said in the first major abortion rights case, Hall v. Lefkowitz.[9] As Friendly concluded, "But the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges." I believe the correct way forward is to put this issue to a vote and let the American people determine by ballot referendum what the correct viability limit on abortion should be, and in what circumstances is allowed. I have no doubt that they will agree with me, as shown by Gallup polling, and restrict abortion to roughly the 12th week of pregnancy, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, and allow abortion in cases such as rape and life of the mother.Point of DisagreementUltimately, I argue that abortion should be slightly more restrictive than Con believes, and not allow abortion simply because Down's Syndrome is evident in a pregnant child, or other illnesses for that matter. I believe we should err on the side of caution when potentially taking another human life, and that human life is precious. This is a very controversial issue according to Gallup polling[6] and I recognize that it is a 50% split here, unlike the broader abortion issue where there is broad consensus when human life begins, around 12 weeks, and that abortion-on-demand is immoral.We simply cannot ask unborn children whether they would like to be born, and I question whether we should infer they do not wish to be born because of a disability. I think the reasoning that one should not be born because they are disabled is a dangerous precedent that devalues those with disabilities, whether born or unborn. Furthermore, it allows us to set an arbitrary definition of who is worthy of being born. Does that set precedent for us to expand this to anyone who shows signs of depressin, for example? What if they show signs of dwarfism, a height disability? At what point do we draw the line in deciding the disability is so great they should not be born because of it?Ultimately, I would urge my opponent to reconsider whether such reasoning is preferable to adoption.Sources:[1] http://www.bereawiki.com... [2] http://www.hli.org...http://www.whyprolife.com...[3] http://healthland.time.com...[4] http://www.whyprolife.com...[5] http://www.guttmacher.org...[6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...[8] http://www.nrlc.org...[9] http://www.law.harvard.edu... |
15 | 3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00000-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! " But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: "I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. " A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a "tu torque fallacy", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated. |
9 | 8156d8db-2019-04-18T13:53:21Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Uniforms should be worn in school How can you confidently say that people don't wear the same quality uniform? Do you have any evidence? Ok, even if people don't wear the same quality uniform, then this might result for the principal to setup some consequences like detention, seeing the student back home, or even expelling the student ( which I believe nobody wants this to happen). 2. How can wearing uniform increase distractions when everyone is wearing the same outfit? No one will be distracted because students know that they are wearing the same outfit as everyone else, so why bother looking at others uniforms when you have the same one!!!! 3. And the concern that how does it increase self confidence, there is a simple answer to it. In a non-uniform school when middle and lower class children wear something and the rich children wear famous, expensive clothing, the middle and lower class children feel excluded, negative things about themselves, and the fact that they can't afford these type of expensive clothing. That is the main reason why bullying happens in public schools. But if everyone wears uniforms, then the rich children will wear the same uniform as others wear. And if everyone wears the same uniform, children will have self confidence that they will not be targeted as a victim of bullying of any other bad activity. In conclusion, I believe that by wearing uniforms, we can make our lives easier and reduce the chance of being a victim. I have made my points that logically lead to proving that uniforms should be worn in schools and my opponents has not provided any convincing points or evidence. North, South, East or West ... Everyone knows that the Pro is the best. So vote for Pro!!!!!!!!! |
21 | 42fff17f-2019-04-18T18:21:27Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Famers Storywriting Debate Tournament Round #1 Thank You TUF, for a great round, I really enjoyed reading it. ______________________ Allister stood in awe of Mirvas beauty, "Are you ready?" she asked, "there is not much time before it begins." ________________ THE PREVIOUS DAY: Allister had been eating alone at the local pub, anxious for his first real experience at what was to be his job. He wished that he could fast forward time to tomorrow and be done with it all. "imagine it," he thought to himself, "my first assasination and its the King of Elkvale! People will speak of this for generations, and they wont even realize it was myself who performed the deed!" Just then the same man who he had embarassed a few weeks ago, in this same place, sat down at Allisters table. "I came here to reacquire my sword from you, kid," he snarled, "Now either you hand it over or I'll cut your head clean off." Allister looked at the man with a smirk on his face. He could see the axe the man was carrying, and the knife he had strapped to his leg. He knew none of them would be of any use to him, as Allister was much too quick for the large man to hit. "Keep your mouth shut and walk away imbecile," Allister growled, "wouldnt want me to take your pretty little axe and knife now would you?" The mans face became beet red, and it was obvious Allisters insult had throughly offended him. "Look here pipsqueak," the man yelled, "either you give me my sword back or I will kill you." Suddenly everyone in the pub stopped and stared at Alliister and the man. It was obvious they were waiting to see what would happen. Allister, arrogant as he was, just couldnt let this mana actions slide, lest he lose his precious image of being someone that just shouldnt be threatened or bothered. "Go for it lard-as$," he replied. Suddenly the man sprang up and flipped the table over, readying his axe. Allister deftly dodged the overturned table, and stood, ready for the mans swing. The man gave a roar and charged Allister, swinging his axe. THUD! Allister dodged the mans swing easily as his axe buried into the ground where he had just stood. While the man attempted to yank his axe out of the ground Allister came up behind and kicked him in the rear and sent him toppling. Allister then quickly pulled the axe out of the ground the rest of the way and jumped back, "Such a beautiful axe," Allister taunted, "it will make a fine addition to my collection." The crowd watching in the pub all laughed raucously over his comment. "Shut your mouth you filthy runt!" the man bellowed as he got back up. He pulled his knife from the holster on his hip. "Ha, that knife looks pretty too, should make a nice addition to my collection as well!" Allister gloated. The man charged him again and once more Allister sent him toppling. This time dodging him and tripping him as he ran by. Allister then knocked him on the skull with the hilt of the axe and quickly grabbed the mans knife. He then jumped back again, and sat down on the lap of a woman, who was sitting at the table he was then standing next to. "Well hello there pretty lady," he flirted, keeping his eye on the large man who was now stumbling to his feet. He then looked down at the woman and was shocked to see the same woman who had mysteriously appeared and dissapeared from his and TjorbοΏ½rn's home before. He was shocked by her beauty, and stared shamelessly at her. She smiled at him, winked, and said, "well hello, i would look behind you." Just then Allister was picked up by the large man and thrown across the room, hitting a table and sending it toppling with a thunderous crash. He quickly jumped to his feet but not in time to dodge the punch aimed at his gut. It was so forceful that Allister felt as if every last bit of air had been forced out of his body. He went to his knees, but thankfully his years of training allowed him to have no need to recover from such a blow, as he immediately swept the mans legs out from underneath him. He then punched the man square in the nose while he was on the ground and jumped back up, overlooking the man, blood was now pouring from the mans freshly broken nose. "I would stop if I were you," Allister warned, "you're no match for me, and if this continues it will only lead to death on your part once I am no longer amused with you." The man grabbed at Allisters legs, but Allister was too quick, and deftly avoided the mans grasp. He then kicked the man in the jaw, and looked over him again, "stop you fool, do you wish to die?" The man began picking himself up and managed to gain his footing again. All the while Allister was watching , ready for any attack the man may have had in store for him. Suddenly the man charged Allister again, pulling a then hidden knife from his back. Allister once more dodged the mans attack, again sending him to the ground. "Enough of this," he roared, grabbing the axe that now lay on the ground. He stood over the man, ready to swimg, "concede defeat or die pathetic man." "Never!" the man croaked, and weakly attempted to grab at Allister. "Very well," Allister responded, "then you die." Allister swung the axe down, and the man cringed, expecting death. Yet it never came, instead the axe thudded into the ground next to him. He opened his eyes to see Allister standing over him smirking, "Well it appears out brave friend has wet himself!" Suddenly the whole pub began laughing, as indeed, the man had soiled himself. Allister then kicked the man in the face once more, this time with enough force to knock him unconscious. The bystanders in the pub raucously applauded, prompting Allister to bow. He then looked over at the woman from before, and winked. "What say you all? Do i deserve a kiss as a prize for my victory?" The crowd roared their approval. Allister then walked over to the woman and knelt down next to her, "and what about you, fair lady? Do you think I am deserving of a kiss?" The woman smirked, "yes I do, but not because you defeated this man." "Very well then! Kiss me first then I will figure out your reasons second. In this case, asking questions later is a wonderful option!" Allister then leaned in and kissed the woman. Though he intended it to be a short kiss, the moment his lips met hers it felt as if a jolt of electricity coursed through his body. The kiss quickly became passionate, and the crowd roared their approval. When it was finished he was left breathless, in awe. He had never actually felt anything so intense before. The woman looked to be feeling much the same, her cheeks were now red, and the expression on her face showed much the same reaction as Allister's. "Tell me," allister whispered into her ear, "what is your name?" "My name," she responded, "is Mirva, and we have much to talk about now." "Yes we do," Allister said, "perhaps you would like to speak in a more private setting?" "Yes I would," she answered, "but first, you know my name, what is yours?" "Allister," he answered, "Shall we step outside then?" With that both of them stood and walked out of the pub. The crowd cheering them. _________________ ok TUF, some questions that need answering 1) What is the conversation that both Allister and Mirva will be having? 2) Why is Mirva(the daughter of the king) in a common pub 3) How does TjorbοΏ½rns and Allisters mission of killing the King involve Allister and Mirvas meeting? Remember we still have 2 and a 1/2 rounds to go, so lets really flesh out this story and explain it in-depth. |
41 | c8121560-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Social Security Cuts Politicalwiz, think about this carefully i meant to put and thought i had put ' i think it wont reduce the deficit' and i agree with this: President Obama has sent congress a list of Programs he is comfortable of Congress cutting fromt he budget to lower the Debt. The list includes: β $18 billion in cuts deemed unnecessary by the Pentagon β $13 billion from funding for programs at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services β $8 billion in cuts for State and Foreign Operations β $2.5 billion in transportation funding β Over $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies β $630 million in earmarked transportation projects β $35 million by ending the Crop Insurance Good Performance Rebate for subsidized insurance premiums β $30 million for a job training for specific certain student loan processors β Reductions to housing assistance programs β Reductions to some health care programs |
15 | 3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first |
9 | a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should wear school uniform. I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school. |
21 | a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | global climate change is human caused For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like "humans are causing the rise in global temperatures" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped. |
36 | 331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is golf a sport Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated "Golf is the most boring activity known to man" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact. |
46 | 1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00002-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org... |
48 | 4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The voting age should be reduced to 16 No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals. |
50 | 3fdb36f1-2019-04-18T12:56:37Z-00003-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal The universe and humanity are equal, their only difference is age. The human mind can comprehend the universe, as humans are a universal species. To think, we need a heartbeat; to survive, we need numerous things. Humanity is an entirety of numerous things, and the universe is an entirety of numerous things. The cohesive human communicates with the entirety of the universe. Communication is between the cohesive human and the cohesive universe. All factors that sum up to the cohesive human communicate. The heart communicates to the universe, the mind communicates to the universe, and the human communicates to the universe.(all other factors included). Communication is of the numerous factors that sum up to the cohesive human, who communicates as the product of these numerous factors. |
47 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rΔ djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI |
23 | f1f121d0-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolve that Euthanasia should be legalized When the doctor enters, your heart skips a beat. You know that there's no hope, that eventually death will come your way. But you also know that the fight to get there will be unbearably painful. You then realize that you will be cared for 24 hours, 7 days a week. You won't be able to go to the bathroom without help, you'll have to be forced fed. Your family is suffering from the truth and the unability to know just when the death will come. Euthanasia is physician assited suicide, and death with dignity. For so many reasons Euthanasia should be legalized, dignity, to end the pain, and so many more. Therefore I am for the above resolution, Euthanasia should be legalized. |
2 | e82afa07-2019-04-18T17:50:15Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Make Smoking Illegal I see no reason why the smoking of meat should be illegal! It's the smoking of cigarettes that should be illegal. I have three arguments why the smoking of cigarettes should be illegal (not the smoking of meat, challenger! ) Arguments: - Second hand smoke from cigarettes could cause nearby sufferers of COPD, Asthma, Allergies, or Bronchitis to have an outbreak of their symptoms which include trouble breathing, nausea, and even death! This is one reason why the government should make the production and consumption of cigarettes illegal! - The problem of cigarette smoking in the United States of America lowers life expectancy rating which make U. S. Citizens leave the USA. This is caused by about 200 known cancer causing poisons in cigarette smoke like tar, nicotine, methane, lead, and carbon monoxide! This is another reason why the United States of America should ban cigarette smoking! - Michelle Obama and the rest of the United States of America have created plans to cut down on obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, and strokes but they are forgetting one disease that kills more people than the 4 disorders that I listed above combined, that is cancer! One way that the White House could cut down the cancer rate in the United States is by banning the production and consumption of cigarettes! - My last argument of why consumption and production of cigarettes should be banned is it will lower the rate of wildfires! Approximately 50% of all wildfires are created by careless loggers, moonshiners, and other people that flick lit cigarettes at wood which ignites the wood and creates a wildfire that depending on it's location could kill more than 100 innocent people and 200 innocent animals. This is my last argument why the production and consumption of cigarettes should be illegal! Since I proved something, I no longer have the burden of proof. |
39 | 342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00002-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Minimum Wage should be increased. I am a strong debater on most topics. However, economics is a topic I am not very knowledgable about. |
35 | a4146d25-2019-04-18T16:33:25Z-00002-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games Well im that guy so the fundimentals of video games are stupid like dora what is the point of it so yeah. Those games that anyalize your IQ are mentally stupid. |
47 | f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Be Abolished Time for the final round, the rebuttal round. Let me tell you what happened in this debate. Firstly, I told you that homework is beneficial in moderate amounts. My opponent then tried to rebut this argument, saying that "moderate is a relative term, and how can you ensure that this MODERATE happens" however, I have already answered this, I regard moderate as one or two pieces of small homework due in two or three days and the occasional large coursework or studying for a test. Furthermore, the title of this debate is "Homework Should Be Abolished", not "Homework Should Be Regulated". Ensuring that "moderate happens" is irrelevant. Also, just because some teachers can be mean and give large amounts of homework doesn't mean all homework should be banned. That is a rather extreme response to such a small thing, don't you think? I think so. Also, my worthy opponent said that "any benefits homework might have given a child doesn't work as the child won't have done the homework because there isn't enough time in their schedule", however, as I have already shown you, moderate amounts will allow the child to do the homework. My opponent then tried to tell you that homework is time consuming, it can put unnecessary pressure on a student, and the student doesn't always do the homework. However, I have already answered the first point, as I have kept saying "in moderate amounts" which my opponent keeps brushing aside with a few remarks. Furthermore, my opponent said "pupils will have to wake up early in the morning at say, 6:00 just to get to school on time", however, it takes an average of 45 minutes-> 1 hour to get ready. Taking the latest time, the student will be able to get to school at 7:00. Normally, school starts at 8:30, is there really no local school, and it takes 1 hour and a half to get to school!? Also, my opponent gave the example of a schedule. She gave the times 6:00am->9:00pm at the latest. If the student has such an extreme schedule such as this, the student is clearly overworking him/herself and should consider dropping a few extra-curriculars. But the majority of students don't have such extreme schedules such as this. My opponent's second point, again, has been rebutted as most schools don't give out heaps of homework, merely moderate amounts. My opponent's third point, however, is an extreme case. How many student's parents would do their work for them? Not many. The majority of parents are responsible, and would therefore make the child do their homework themselves. Your case is an extreme case, and not the majority, so your argument doesn't hold much credibility. Then I went on to tell you that homework enables school days to be shorter. Once again, my worthy opponent tried to rebut my argument. She said that "Also, teachers are known for giving their students a review sheet to do in class so they can be sure a student has fully grasped the concept. With this structure, homework is made obsolete. Therefore, a school day would simply remain the same length as homework would become non-existent." However, this doesn't answer my point at all. She has claimed that with a review sheet in class, homework is made obsolete, so the school days would remain the same length. However, what about all the coursework and studying done at home, not to mention all the finished classwork. We can't guarantee the student will do it. So my opponent has not properly addressed my point. After all, one measly review sheet can't add up to work being done at home. In Round 3, my opponent tried to tell you that there is no need for homework and children can still work at home. To back up her point, my opponent tried to use my own source against me. She pointed out that "The value of homework has been the subject of various research studies over the years, yet there is still no conclusive evidence that it makes a big difference in helping students improve achievement. The most often-cited studies are those that conclude that there is virtually no evidence that it helps in elementary school but some evidence that it does improve academic performance in later grades. Yet this newest study looked at 10th graders and found no correlation", but very conveniently didn't emphasize a point in there, if you take a closer look, you will find in that quote these words "but some evidence that it does improve academic performance in later grades", so in fact, my opponent is helping my case, and supporting my case! Then, in the second part of my worthy opponent's quote, she said "Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses." However, if you continue reading the article she found this from, (https://www.washingtonpost.com...,) you will find these words "But,according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework." As you can see, my opponent is cherry-picking from the article, choosing quotes which support her case, but leaving out the rest if it points otherwise. My opponent then went on to say that students can do work by themselves. However, let's be honest. How many of us would actually do that? How many of us, would, if given the choice, do work at home? Not many of us. Not I, and probably, not you. So homework must be mandatory to get things done. As you can see, I have addressed all of my worthy opponent's points. However, when it came to addressing mine, my opponent fell painfully short. She has not told us why:~homework does not have benefits, merely why the benefits are obsolete, which I have rebutted~there is not work done at home such as classwork, studying, and coursework that take up a lot of time collectively~students would do work at home given the choice, and teachers could trust them to do it and not have to stretch the school day So now, I will leave you with a quote to think over:"Nothing is more powerful for your future than being a gatherer of good ideas and information. That's called doing your homework." -Jim Rohn |
38 | 87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00011-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana dispensaries Doctors should be trusted to check abuse of medical marijuana |
33 | 6dc1a714-2019-04-18T15:15:29Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Should sport become comulsory PRO says that his argument was intended for a different debate and asks that I re-submit my case. But this isn't at all fair to me. He. not I. has made a mistake, and he's asking for me to post my case before he posts his whn we both have an equal burden. This simply is not fair in the east bit, especially when he forfeited Round 2. And that he claims he wants me to "resubmit" my case sounds almost robotic, because I never submitted a constructive.All in all, I refuse to succumb to PRO"s highly deceptive game. He had every opportunity to post a case this round, as he did in Rounds 2 and 3, and this ploy to have me post first is simply unfair and disengenuous. |
40 | 808a3887-2019-04-18T18:20:50Z-00005-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Capital punishment My OPP made sound arguments it is just that as he stated "I think that judges need to contemplate what punishment would be suitable for a particular criminal, and if the DP is seen as suitable, then so be it." Well there is no room for emotions and hot-headed behavior in the judicial system. A judge can be biased. Our system of criminal justice for all its protections is sufficiently fallible that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly debated for almost a century in the U.S. The debate has swayed both ways, resulting in a moratorium on the punishment and a change in the procedure for applying the punishment. The institution of the death penalty in the United States is a fallible, unconstitutional and grossly abused appendage of the judicial system. One major argument against the death penalty highlights the fact that killing a person ends their right to due process. Once a person is dead they can no longer appeal their conviction, so even if new evidence comes forward, the person remains dead. The death penalty is the most final and unforgiving punishment imaginable. This poses problems because our system is fallible and prone to error. That is why the appeals process exists, so that errors can be corrected. In a system that prides itself on the importance of the appeals process the death penalty remains as the juggernaut of punishments. If the death penalty is cruel and it is a fallible system in which innocents have been executed, does this mean that the State if guilty of murder? Under a representative democracy there is no absolute leader that is placed above the law. Because murders have been committed and they have been done so in a systematic manner, doesn't this then mean the State has murdered? Many people would argue that the State has to be able to make mistakes, because it is a institution of humanity. If the punishment is absolute and final, shouldn't the State doing the punishing be fallible? The idea of a State that can be wrong convicting and executing its citizens is everything the framers of the Constitution stood against. People that have been proven innocent after execution: http://listverse.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (1) Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 In February 1983, Wanda Lopez, was stabbed to death during her night shift at the gas station where she worked. After a manhunt, police found De Luna hiding under a truck. Recently released from prison, he was violating his parole by drinking in public. De Luna told police that he was innocent and he offered the name of the person who he saw at the gas station. Police ignored the fact that he did not have a drop of blood on him even though the crime scene was covered in blood. The single eyewitness confirmed to police that De Luna was the murderer after police told him he was the right guy. At trial De Luna named Carlos Hernandez as the man he saw inside the gas station, across the street from the bar where De Luna had been drinking. Hernandez and DeLuna were strikingly similar in appearance but, unlike DeLuna, Hernandez had a long history of knife attacks similar to the convenience store killing and repeatedly told friends and relatives that he had committed the murder. Friends confirmed that he was romantically linked to Lopez as well. De Luna's lawyers knew of Hernandez's criminal past but never thoroughly investigated his previous crimes. On December 7, 1989, Texas executed 27-year old Carlos De Luna. (2) Larry Griffin executed in 1995 On June 26, 1980 in St. Louis 19-year-old Quintin Moss was killed in a drive-by shooting. The conviction was based largely on the testimony from Robert Fitzgerald a white career criminal, who was at the scene at the time of the murder. He testified that he saw three black men in the car when shots were fired and that Griffin shot the victim through the window of the car with his right hand. This was Griffin's attorneys first murder trial and he did not challenge the testimony even though Griffin was left-handed. He also failed to bring forth an alibi witness who was with Griffin at the time of the murder. Griffin's fingerprints were not found on the car or the weapon all evidence against him was circumstantial. There is evidence that suggests Fitzgerald was promised a reduce sentence in exchange for his testimony. The prosecution also failed to address that there were two other witnesses who confirmed that Griffin did not commit the murder and they were able to name the three men who did. Appeals courts upheld his conviction and death sentence. Griffin was executed by lethal injection on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence right up to his execution. In 2005, a professor University of Michigan Law School reopened the case. His investigation concluded that Griffin was innocent. (3) Leo Jones executed 1998 On May 23, 1981 in Jacksonville, FL police officer Thomas Szafranski killed when shots were fired at his police cruiser when he was stopped at an intersection. Within minutes police officers busted into Leo Jones' apartment where they found Jones and his cousin, Bobby Hammonds. Police took both men in for questioning and then charged Jones, who they claimed had confessed. Hammonds gave a statement, saying he saw Jones leave the apartment with a rifle and return after he heard some gunshots. In 1997, a retired police officer, Cleveland Smith, came forward and said the officer that arrested Jones had bragged that he beat Jones after his arrest. Smith, who described the officer as an "enforcer" testified that he once watched him get a confession from a suspect through torture. Smith claimed that he waited so long to come forward with this evidence because he wanted to secure his pension. More than a dozen people had implicated another man as the killer saying they either saw him carrying a rifle as he ran from the crime scene or heard him brag he had shot the officer. Even Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw wrote that Jones case had become "a horse of a different color". Newly discovered evidence, Shaw wrote, "casts serious doubt on Jones guilt." Shaw and one other judge voted to grant Jones a new trial. However, a five-judge majority ruled against him. Jones was executed by electric chair on March 24, 1998. These are just a few innocent people executed. Since 1976 there have been 1292 people executed...How many were innocent nobody will ever know. If one INNOCENT person is executed capital punishment is flawed and has to be abolished. This is literally life and death. "I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings" --Marquis de Lafayette |
8 | 6702cc04-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal == Intro ==In this debate, I'll defend abortion being legal for some period in the pregnancy. This precludes Con from making arguments relating to abortion being immoral after a certain point in the pregnancy. The BoP in this debate is shared, both because of a lack of a clear status quo (though in most countries, abortion is legal) and because this is a normative resolution.Con needs to argue that abortion should be illegal *throughout* the pregnancy, with the two exceptions listed in R1. Note that Con has to defend bans on abortion even in cases where it is required for good mental health of pregnant individuals, and in cases where, for instance, contraception fails or there's fetal impairment. I also have fiat over measures to make abortion more safe, accessible, and cheap, and I support measures to ensure that.== My case ==I'm going to advance three claims: (1) that pregnant individuals have a right to abortion, (2) that allowing abortion prevents dangerous back-alley abortions, and (3) that legalizing abortion reduces the numbers of unwanted children in society, which is a benefit. Each of these three contentions affirms the resolution independently; if I win even one of them, vote Pro. (C1) Pregnant individuals have a right to abortionA. AutonomyBans on abortion prevent pregnant individuals from exercising a choice in terms of what they are allowed to do with their bodies. Governments ought not prevent people from exercising choices unless there is direct harm to others. As John Stuart Mill explains, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against [their] will, is to prevent harm to others." [1] If the state bans abortion, it prevents people from exercising free will. Why should states follow this standard of respecting free choice? There's three reasons for this: (1) The state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The harm principle acts as a mechanism to ensure that the state is protecting the will of its people. (2) The harm principle is the best utilitarian goal, because each individual is best placed to decide their own interests and to weigh their own pleasure and pain. Given that calculations of pleasure and pain are subjective, when these are felt by the same person, that person should be able to make these decisions. (3) Empirical evidence suggests that states with more political and social freedoms also have greater rates of human development. [2]Now, Con might argue that abortion harms the fetus, and is therefore immoral. However, the fetus isn't conscious until 24 weeks of pregnancy. Consciousness only arises between the 25th and 30th week of pregnancy. [3] [4] Given that the fetus is not a conscious person, killing a fetus is akin to killing a plant -- a living being which cannot feel. B. Self-defensePregnant individuals have a right to self-defense. People who are denied abortions face immense psychological harm. According to a University of San Francisco study, "women are much more emotionally stressed if they are denied an abortion initially than if they received one upon request." [5] A 2013 study by Roca, et al. concludes that "[c]ompared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied abortion felt more regret and anger, and less relief and happiness." [6]This offers an independent reason to allow abortion. First, it means there's significant harm to people who are denied abortions. The state has an interest in preventing psychological harm to its citizens. Therefore, abortion should be legal. Second, it means people should have a right of self-defense, against psychological harm. If Con concedes that abortion should be legal to protect the lives of pregnant persons, then they concede that there's a balancing of rights here. Given that the fetus cannot feel mental states, the right of people to escape psychological harm and exercise their autonomy outweighs. Conclusion: Given that the fetus is a non-conscious entity dependent on the parent for survival, banning abortion is an unjust restriction on the free will of individuals to control their bodies and to defend themselves against psychological harm.(C2) Allowing abortion prevents back-alley abortionsA. Bans on abortion cause people to turn to harmful back-alley abortionsThe alternative to legal abortion in licensed clinics is back-alley abortions. There's two warrants for this. First, on an analytical level, people continue to want abortions even when it's illegal. They're often in desperate positions which prevent them from having kids or are afraid of the emotional harm which will result. They also often don't have access to adoption, and don't want to carry the fetus to term. This means they're likely to turn to illegal means of abortion when they don't have access to safe, legal abortion.Second, there's empirical evidence that proves this claim. Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times explains, "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely." [7] Indeed, back-alley abortion accounts for 13% of deaths due to pregnancy. [7] At least 22,800 women die each year from complications of unsafe abortion. [8] The reason these back-alley abortions are harmful is the lack of regulation and the lack of clinics to approach. Illegal clinics and pregnant individuals themselves (when self-aborting) tend to use brutal methods such as beating the abdomen hard, piercing the amniotic sac with a sharp object, and using poisons. [9] [10]B. Legal abortion reduces back-alley abortion ratesThere's two pieces of analytical justification for this. One, these unregulated clinics (as well as self-abortion) are illegal, meaning people are disincentivized from pursuing them, when there's access to legal clinics. Two, people recognize that a legal, regulated clinic is much safer. Together, this means that the existence of legal clinics takes down the business of unregulated abortion, due to a lack of demand.This is also empirically true. For instance, in South Africa, after abortion was legalized, abortion-related maternal mortalities reduced by ninety-one percent. [11] This means that, in Con's world, abortion continues, and is far more dangerous. Vote Pro because legal abortion saves the lives of individuals. (C3) Bans on abortion lead to more unwanted childrenBanning abortion means there's a large number of unwanted children, insofar as some people still choose to not break the law and don't engage in abortion. Adoption isn't enough to give homes and families to these children. Randie Bencannan of Rewire explains, "Recent statistics show that approximately 14,000 newborns are adopted annually in the United States through voluntary placements, a number that has remained flat for about 20 years. Meanwhile, in 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed -- the lowest number in decades." [12] These children experience massive challenges. In some cases, they're sent to a broken foster care system. Children in foster care are four times more likely to experience sexual abuse than other children. [13] Moreover, as Pam Fessler of the National Public Radio notes, "many former foster kids have a tough time out on their own. When they age out of the system, they're more likely than their peers to end up in jail, homeless or pregnant. They're also less likely to have a job or go to college." [14] In other cases, they're retained by their families. In these cases, the children face significant problems. (1) They're more likely than other kids to die at an early age. According to one 2016 study in the US, "[S]tates with restrictive abortion policies increase IMR for black women by 2.214 infant deaths per 1,000 live births." [15] Another study in Finland found that children born due to denied abortions had an infant mortality rate of 24 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. [16] (2) They face economic and psychological disadvantages even in the long term. They perform worse in school, are more likely to face mental illnesses, and more likely to be poor. [16] (3) This hurts economic productivity. For instance, in Romania, "children born after the ban on abortions had worse educational and labor market achievements as adults . . . [and] crowding in schools, due to the large increase in fertility immediately following the abortion ban, lowered educational achievements of the cohorts affected." [17] There's even some evidence that legalizing abortion reduces crime rates, which, even if questionable, is disconcerting. [18]More unwanted children hurts the parents. Parents who're denied abortions are more likely to face psychological problems, have worse relationships, and are twice as likely to face intimate partner violence. [19] Moreover, women who are denied the ability to abort are also adversely affected in terms of economic productivity. Indeed, "[w]omen who were denied an abortion are three times more likely to be unemployed than women who were able to access one." [20] People denied abortion are also four times more likely to be pushed below the poverty line. [21] Conclusion: Banning abortion causes parents to have unwanted children without access to adoption, significantly harming the future prospects of these children, throwing these parents into poverty and unemployment, and causing significant negative impacts to society.For all the above reasons, vote Pro.Sources: http://www.debate.org... |
38 | 8f3513ba-2019-04-18T19:40:40Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | TBD: To Be decided by Con. I'm going to refute all the statements made by opponent and then mention all the points he failed to refute that I offered. I extend all those arguments. I am going to go line by line. I know this makes it larger and more likely to unread, but I don't want to miss any points. PRO said: Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed. CON rebuts: Two points on this issue: a.The issue of this debate is /should/, meaning that the burden here is to show that the FDA shouldn't allow this form of medication. Using the fact that they don't to justify that they /shouldn't/ is illogical. b.My opponent has not shown any evidence of the 'spasmodic' qualities of marijuana, simply making the statement that it is thus does not make it so PRO said: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument. CON rebuts: I refuted each of his arguments which were insurance- not all Americans have insurance, governmental assistance- most adults between 19-65 don't qualify, and type of disease already quantified as cancer in the resolution. My argument stands. PRO said: She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely. This is important to note. I provided the link to Marinol's website proving that the intended PUPROSE of the medication was to relieve nausea. It doesn't really matter what my opponent or I would LIKE to see relieved, smoked cannabis does the job Marinol is SUPPOSED to do better. Because of this fact the rest of his statement does not matter. PRO said (re: Marinol does a poorer job of relieving nausea than does inhaled cannabis): This may be true. CON rebuts: that, in my opinion counts as a concession. PRO said: Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, it's extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA won't approve of it. The FDA can't approve the use of Marijuana because the DEA has it listed as a schedule 1 drug with no medicinal uses. The AMA strongly fought against this classification in 1937 http://blogs.salon.com.... The FDA can not allow medical trials of the drug because of this classification. Due to the fact that PRO has conceded that there is in fact medical value to marijuana and that the lack of inclusion by the FDA is more related to the 'war on drugs' than on competent testing that resulted in proof of 'spasmodic' properties. The fact is that the FDA has absolutely no say in this issue until congress repeals the law classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. PRO said: Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wanted to through that in there. CON rebuts: it provides jobs at the expense of the patients receiving necessary medication. PRO's contention I: Marinol Pills, (a)Reduces pain and suffering, (b)Lasts longer, (c)Approved by the FDA CON rebuts A) irrelevant as that is not it's purpose (B) countered by the length of time it takes to take effect, basically this is one not a point for either side as it depends on what one would prefer, quick or long lasting (C) Irrelevant in a /should/ debate. In other words everything is a non issue. PRO's contention II: Liquid Form Marijuana A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved in Britain D) Cost effective CON rebuts: A) does nothing for nausea; b)see Ib c)irrelevant D) unproven. I asked PRO to provide a price list whereby we could determine the actual cost of the product. He did not do so; therefore his claim of reduced price is unsubstantiated and can not be counted. Points for CON that have gone unrefuted: I.The US government has provided cannabis to those in need in the past, and only stopped when the requests became so large as to be unsustainable for the government. II.My cost analysis of actually ordering the product stands as PRO was unable to prove there were lower cost options available to ALL cancer patients. III.Allowing marijuana to be available by prescription to cancer patients would not increase crime, nor is that a just consideration in determining the benefits of a medication. IV.Sativex does nothing to relieve the nausea and vomiting of cancer patients. Ladies and Gentlemen I would refer you back to the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms I have shown 2 related symptoms, nausea and vomiting, which PRO admits CAN be relieved by the smoking of marijuana. I have also shown that these patients SHOULD have inhalation as an option of delivery method for 3 reasons: 1.it is more effective 2.It costs less 3.it acts faster My opponent has failed to rebut several of my points, and has failed to provide the evidence needed to make his case (ie cost of savitex, lower cost of marinol). In light of PRO's inability to defend his case with proof, and CON's ability to provide source information on every contention made, a CON vote is clearly the logical choice. |
2 | c837ee87-2019-04-18T12:27:18Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Is roblox chat filter becoming too safe Actually, they are not. There are a lot of servers that take everything you say and censor random characters. |
33 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
44 | 481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Oh, my opponent forfeited. I'd like to ask the voter who has read this debate so far to reconsider my side of the argument. Please vote on who's argument you think is more logical. |
23 | 96f07735-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Voluntary Euthanasia Thanks, Varrack! Onto my case.OBSERVATIONSThese are CONCEDED.ARGUMENTSC1. Human DignitySC1/2. What is HD/Respecting Autonomy(a) Big Brother is Watching You. Using Con's line of reasoning, you could make a case that humans must be controlled constantly, in order to ensure that they never make "bad" choices. This could then justify a kind of Orwellian society of oppression and intimidation. Surely, this isn't something that Con would truly advocate for, yet his statement that "it's not ethical to blindly trust people to make the most moral decisions" would seem to form the very basis for a 1984-like society.(b) People should be free to make the wrong decisions to have meaningful choice. If people cannot choose to be immoral, they cannot meaningfully choose to be moral either. For example, suppose that person A is given the following choice: "steal some money, or donate to charity," and that person B is confronted with this choice: "donate to charity." Person A, by choosing the moral option, has meaningfully rejected immorality. They had a choice to do the wrong thing, and walked away. Person B on the other hand, had no choice but to act morally whether he or she wanted to or not, and so they did not have a meaningful choice. In fact, B had no choice at all. Con says it is not ethical to trust people to make the right decisions, but when we deny them the opportunity to make the wrong decisions, we deny them choice, and reduce them to the level of animals or robots unable to think for themselves. That is dehumanizing and fails to treat people as agents with dignity, but rather as kinds of automatons to be programmed and managed.(c) People should be free to make the wrong decisions to grow as individuals. If we can never make the wrong choices, morally-speaking, then we can never feel guilt or remorse, which are key character-building emotions. We only appreciate the importance of ethics and morality because we have felt the pain of being wronged and the guilt of doing wrong to others. These negative emotions highlight the value of the positive ones, and reinforce our desire to be moral people. Therefore, in a world where people had no chance to choose to do wrong, they would also never have a chance to understand why acting morally was good. The whole reason that people have moral worth is that we are capable of appreciating the moral dimension, but by removing free choice, you deny people the ability to do that. Just like a horse cannot understand why morality is good, so too would people be reduced to that level.(d) Freedom is not a free pass. If I choose to do something wrong I must face the legal and ethical consequences of that action. Freedom is not allowing people to do whatever they want without penalty; it is not restricting people from choosing to act in a particular way in the first place. And even that has limits. Since autonomy has such value, the only restriction on autonomous actions is that they cannot infringe on the autonomy of others. This is the system that best maximizes autonomy. In the child example, the child doesn't have full autonomy, which is why his parents are his custodians. So, the child shouldn't be able to run out into the street, but this doesn't actually clash with my claim that most grown adults, through living wills or other means of consent, can autonomously acquiesce to euthanasia. Remember, the resolution is specific to adults. And, children are a special case: they are capable, unlike bugs, cows, and tables, of having choice sometime in the future, which makes them worthy of unique protection and care, but, in their childlike state, they are not any different from those things. So, yes, they are at that level, but they should be protected because of the value placed on autonomy.The conclusion we can draw thus far is that you cannot limit other's freedom, though you can choose to limit your own, since only you can accept the consequences of your own actions. These arguments also affirm the role of free choice in grounding the concept of human dignity.(e) Con then regurgitates his arguments about patients being coerced. This is, at the moment, only a theoretical harm. Con offers no statistics or evidence that reliably describes how often this kind of coercion occurs. If only .0001% of patients face this kind of situation, then the benefits to human dignity may outweigh the harms. Moreover, regulator practices can be used to curb this kind of coercive interaction.SC3. SufferingI am not really sure where the eugenics tangent fits into the debate, but the general thrust of Con's assertions is that pain is natural and useful, and so we should not seek to eliminate it.(a) Some suffering is bad. Con claims that not all pain is a bad thing, and I can agree with that. But "unnecessary" suffering is bad. Unless Con is willing to say that every single instance of suffering that has ever occurred is good, we can say that there is a kind of suffering that is unacceptable. Torture is probably the clearest example of this type of suffering; it is wanton. The type of pain that people in end-stage care are going through is often pointless--it is, essentially, a form of torture. People suffer oftentimes without learning anything, and with increasing hopelessness, discomfort, and desperation. Moreover, there is no point in resisting, since death is imminent. Prolonging the suffering only makes the ordeal more intolerable. When I suffer in training to climb a mountain, I am doing it because I have a goal in mind, but the suffering of terminal illness is forced upon people, it is not in pursuit of some goal.(b) Con never disagrees that suffering oftentimes limits choice. This is DROPPED. Extend it.(c) Con's arguments could again be taken to their logical conclusion: suffering is really useful, so we should deliberately make more of it. If suffering "contains value because it provides the opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion," then maybe we should deliberately seek to make people suffer more. May be I should go around schoolyards beating up small children, or maybe I should pummel my friends to within an inch of their life. After all, I will be helping them develop their character, right? Con talks about the dangers of a slippery slope, yet his arguments really do epitomize that problem more than mine do.(d) Regarding the easel example, this is a sort of nod to my earlier mention of the canvas and the painting. I will simply cross-apply that example here. While the canvas may be a prerequisite to the painting, that does not make the canvas more valuable than the painting. The canvas may even have some worth, but again, in terms of magnitude, the painting outweighs. I may pay $10 for the canvas, but $100 for the painting. So, even if the canvas (or the easel) has some worth or utility, it is only instrumental value. I do not value the canvas or the easel for itself, but I do value the painting for itself. The painting is the end, the easel and canvas are the tools. In that sense, Con's own example works against him, since he has spent this whole debate trying to prove that the canvas itself was the end. C2. PracticalityCon claims I make a bare assertion fallacy which "an easily be proved false if one can find a terminally ill patient that has never attempted to take their own life." But, Con only says that because he misunderstands my argument. I am not saying that EVERY patient will attempt suicide; I am saying that some patients, in an effort to spare themselves the pain, will do so. In England alone, more than 300 terminally ill people commit suicide, and more people have likely tried. [1]Con claims that euthanasia won't make death less painful, and claims I have no warrant for this. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out by doctors and people trained to do so. Rather than having an amateur attempt to end their own life, professional help will logically increase the likelihood of success and painlessness, esp. when using state-approved methods. May suicide victims may use painful methods, such as slashing wrists, out of desperation. But that desperation can be lessened with voluntary euthanasia.Con DROPS the link between my claims here; i.e., he never disputes that IF suicide is an inevitability AND euthanasia reduces the chances of pain, that the conclusion I drew is accurate.C3. Ancillary BenefitsSC1. Psychological ReassuranceI am not talking so much about reassuring families (though that can happen) as I am reassuring victims. After all, the patients are undergoing physical AND psychological pain, whereas the families are only undergoing the latter.SC2. Religious FreedomProhibiting euthanasia does disallow Unitarians their religious rights, as I noted earlier. Giving people a choice whether or not to euthanize maximizes religious freedom by allowing people of all religions (both pro and con on euthanasia) to make a decision in accordance with the faith. Con NEVER DISPUTES that religious freedom is important to the discussion on euthanasia.SC3. Medical ResourcesPro DROPS my arguments that euthanasia actually reduces debt and increases resources for more needy patients. Certainly, physicians should respect life, but I would argue that physicians respect life by not making people suffer and by procuring resources necessary to save people who are savable. Ultimately, the call to do no harm is one solely of interpretation.SC4. LegalityAs I said earlier: "Making the procedure above-the-board incentivizes doctors...to actually discuss it with their patients...rather than to act unilaterally...It's a similar principle to pot legalization--by making it a legitimate enterprise, people are more likely to report abuses and cooperate with government oversight professionals." So, my study is backed by logic. Con DROPPED my logic. At the very least, 1 study cancels out 1 study.SOURCEhttp://tinyurl.com...Over to Con... |
4 | 8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00003-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | should schools use corporal punishment Before I start this debate, I want to define the topic. First of all corporal. Punishment and schools a place where children get their education. So if you define the topic, it'll come out like this. Should places where they give children education use punishments. I think that we should use this corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been use for a long time and nothing bad happened. |
8 | 6702c0c1-2019-04-18T16:33:04Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal ladies and gentlemen, what is the definition of 'legal'? legal [adj]: permitted by law. Well, we could have seen that one coming. But the point of this is that if abortion would be illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:Is it morally correct? Let's picture a scenario: you're young, your free and you just finished any and all educational paths that you wanted to finish. You, being a dreamer, want to travel the world and experience things you've never experienced. You want to love, to be loved and to enjoy life to the fullest. This little fantasy isn't so far fetched and sounds rather enjoyable, right? Now, let's say that I come along and say: "You're not allowed to go anywhere" and tie you to the house. You're stuck, cannot enjoy life, cannot chase your dreams and forced to sit around the house doing whatever needs to be done. you never live because I said that you had to stay in your home and are not allowed to leave. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if we replace me in the story with an infant, a child? Is it still morally incorrect? forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and therefore effectively "tying her to the house" is just as bad as barricading the door. It's her body and legally obligating her to follow the law and denying her the right to chose is just as wrong as the opposite pole. Why should we focus on the rights of the child, a random group of cells that do not posses self-awareness, cannot think, does not feel and in no aspect is more of an human than any of the bacterial clusters that live in your intestines over the rights of the living mother that HAS a life. The person that is currently self-aware and sentient? what makes the child more important than the mother and/or the father that will also indirectly be tied in this? Resolution condition 1: If my opponent cannot properly defend that the unborn child is more worthy of rights than the parents he has lost this debate, take note of that dear readers. A child is not a human anymore than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion is just as moral as violating human rights, which would you rather choose? Is it never acceptable? If we circle back to the definition of legal: something not permitted by law. Does this mean that there are no valid exceptions? We must assume so, because no matter what happens doctors are not above the law. If the mother isn't in grave danger the operation itself would become illegal and thus won't be performed. Isn't this reasonable? but wait, what about the two situations already described by my opponent? "the only reason to have a abortion is if you are raped,[or] the mother's life is at risk if she gives birth. " So, we have two situations where my opponent concedes that abortion might not be such a bad thing. IF the mother's life is in danger the doctor in question has to perform the operation as part of his civil and professional duty. It is in his power to rescue the woman, he is obligated to do so. So we both concede to this point; The doctor is above the law if her life is on the line. However, we do not agree on the former situation: If a woman is raped her life is NOT in danger. She is scarred, she is violated and she is filled with sorrow, anger, fear and disgust, but she isn't in danger. Why is it now suddenly ok to go above the law? Why should she be excluded and why should we go against the right of the child? This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights. Resolution condition 2: If my opponent cannot defend the paradox that a child that is the result of rape has less rights than any other child, he has lost the debate. Is legal banning a solution? The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. Which leads to the final condition:Resolution condition 3: If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe efficient manner, he has lost the debate. Dear readers of the debate, I have specified why the resolution "Abortion should be illegal" cannot work, and why it contradicts itself. I have presented my opponent with three vital questions that his entire case must rest on and I wish my opponent to properly answer them; for abortion is more than just a selfish act that allows parents to party a bit longer into the lifetime. Abortion is a tool to aid us in preserving our own human right, our own power to control our own bodies and not be bound to the house by someone that cares not what we think. Abortion is a basic human right, and making it illegal is not an option.1) . http://www.genderacrossborders.com... |
29 | b4650710-2019-04-18T19:42:48Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | hunting should become illegal Please vote for the better debater and not your personal position. I standby everything I said.. |
4 | 834c6785-2019-04-18T12:57:44Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | School should ban the punishment for late student 1) Schools punish tardieness too heavily.School nowadays always use an appropriate punishment for the student who missed several minutes of class. If you take away that punsishment, what incentive do students have to make it on time? What incentive do they have to not miss half of the lecture? After all, if your plan is enacted (baning the punisment of tardiness), there would be no concequence to miss almost all of the lecture.2) Teachers are not punished when they are tardy.Contradictory and irrelevant. You go on that they get payroll deductions if they are tardy. That completely contradicts this point. Also, it's irrelevant when talking about removing the punishment for students. That's like saying we should feed a hampster more becuase we feed the dog an entire bowl of food. They are completely different: one educates and one recieves education. I think that was your entire argument. |
22 | 10113b57-2019-04-18T17:05:08Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Theme Song Debate! Bro. Y u forfeit. Everyone knows I hate forfeits. Anyway: Batman! Batman! Batman! Batman! Batman, Batman, Batman Batman, Batman, Batman! Na na na na na na na na na na na na na Batman! http://www.youtube.com... |
39 | 4e66753b-2019-04-18T16:33:16Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage Laws Harm the Poor My apologies for poor source formatting in the second round; I ran out of characters. Rebuttals: A poor person who receives a wage increase from an increase in minimum wage will indeed have increased wealth. However, not all minimum wage workers will keep their jobs after a minimum wage increase. And for those who do, I would argue that minimum wage laws, while giving the illusion of necessity, often only serve to increase the wages of workers who would have seen their wages increase anyway. Talented workers (those least likely to lose, or not be able to find a job because of minimum wage laws) can receive wage increases through promotions, bonuses, or finding a higher paying job. In fact, supporters of minimum wage laws in the United States originally portrayed the minimum wage as a starting point from which employees would move upward, not a long term salary. We could create a Department of Candy, to teach children that candy tastes good. But it would be foolish to believe that children would not still enjoy candy if this department were abolished. Much of economics is counterintuitive. My opponent states that increases in minimum wage lead to increased unemployment among the poor because of the market economy. This is completely true, but I do not understand the point my opponent is trying to make, unless he is proposing doing away with the market economy, in which case the issue of minimum wage seems superfluous. My opponent states that "If the price of labor increases, the demand will decrease (fewer jobs) and the demand will increase (more people seeking jobs)." I assume that my opponent knows this, but just to clarify, demand for employees is NOT the same as demand for employment. Demand for employees is good for workers and is lowered by minimum wage laws. Demand for employment is bad for workers, and I argue that this demand is increased by minimum wage laws due to increases in unemployment. 1. How big is the increase in unemployment for poor families? This is difficult to measure because minimum wage laws have been in place in the United States for such a long time. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that an increase (remember, this is only an increase from existing minimum wage, it does not take into account the effects of having a minimum wage in the first place) in the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would decrease employment by approximately 500,000 workers. [1] In 2012, there were 1,600,000 workers earning the federal minimum wage. [2] People who lose or cannot find jobs due to minimum wage increases are those who are looking for minimum wage jobs, thus the vast majority of those 500,000 jobs will be taken out of the current 1,600,000 if the federal minimum wage is raised to $10.10 per hour. 2. What is the economic impact of increased unemployment for poor families? My opponent argues that policies that cause unemployment among the poor are not so bad, because those people can receive welfare. This argument confuses the issue. Welfare programs help the poor, this does not change the fact that minimum wage laws, in and of themselves, hurt the poor. 3. Do the possible negative economic impact of increased unemployment outweigh the positive economic impact of increased salaries for poor families? My opponent states that "only" 34% of economists believe that an increase in minimum wage would make it noticeably more difficult for low-skilled workers to find jobs. This is extremely misleading as this "only" 34% is greater than the percentage of economists who believe it would NOT be more difficult. (32%) There is no consensus among economists on this issue, but the most held opinion is that increasing the minimum wage WOULD cause difficulty to low-skilled workers. My opponent cites a survey indicating that 47% (I would not that this is not a majority) of economists believe that a $9 per hour minimum wage would be better than the current rate of $7.25. I think that this misses the point of this debate. The issue at hand is minimum wage, not an increase in it. Claiming that an increase in minimum wage would help the poor is very different from claiming that having a minimum wage law in the first place helps the poor. Minimum wage laws have created a system in which people are in jobs that do not necessarily correspond to their talents or skill level. Given this disordered status quo, very small upward adjustments in the minimum wage could theoretically help workers, but only because those workers are already in the wrong jobs. (e.g. people trying to raise families on fast-food jobs) Workers would be better off with a more functional system, without any minimum wage laws in the first place. Rebuttals to Rebuttals The opinions of some right wing economists are unrelated to the empirical issue of the effect of minimum wage laws on unemployment. My opponent argues that increased unemployment among teenagers is not a bad thing, because those jobs might be taken by poor adults. While I disagree with this view philosophically, I would also like to point out that unemployment among teenagers is only one particular example, showcasing the effects of minimum wage on low-skilled workers. The economic laws that apply to teenagers apply to all low-skilled workers, adult and otherwise. Also, teenage joblessness often inhibits social mobility. Sources: 1. http://cbo.gov... 2. http://www.bls.gov... |
31 | ddf650a-2019-04-18T11:15:15Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Goodness obeing good is bad because i often try to help but just make it worse |
39 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | 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 |
27 | 70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, "It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, "Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. " Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that "illegal" purchases "were often conducted entirely out in the open" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; "law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns" [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...) |
44 | b8738fe-2019-04-18T11:11:08Z-00008-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Conditional Election I do not agree with you about God "looking down the corridors of time". He didn't have to look, He already knew. Also I am a bit undecided about my beliefs on faith. I know that it is a free gift given by God and that it is the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen. I am not sure when God gives it to someone or who He gives it to. I have not studied this quite yet and will do my best to study as much as possible on this topic and that of condition and unconditional election (which neither one can exist without faith). I want you to know that I will make mistakes and may claim things I assume but have not studied, Please accept my apologies now. I will debate based on knowledge that I have gained from wise elders and also knowledge I hope to obtain. |
19 | c015fff4-2019-04-18T16:39:13Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal in the United States Resolution - Gay marriage should be legal in the United StatesThis is a Shared BOPFor the purpose of this debate legal shall be defined asLegal - A federal and state recognition of gay marriage across the board (The federal government shall give all the same rights and benefits to same sex couples as hetero sexual couples) Rounds Me(1) Outline(2) Contentions(3) Rebuttals, Contentions, ClosingAdversary (1) Contentions(2) Rebuttals, Contentions, Closing(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon shall result in a full 7 point drop from my adversary due to him/her having an extra round. (2) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct point(3) Multiple FFS shall possibly result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges. |
29 | ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00016-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Ending birthright requires amending 14th, not just reinterpreting it |
21 | fb709d4c-2019-04-18T19:23:20Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | The human effect on global warming is significant. I'm not sure how well I worded the debate resolution, so I will explain further. This is a scientific debate about whether humans are driving global warming and whether it is a problem. And so as not to cause any confusion, I hereby discredit Al Gore. Any arguments that cite Al Gore as a source should be ignored. Definitions Human effect: Effect caused by unnatural human actions; this includes sources such as factories and power plants but excludes sources such as natural respiration. Global warming: The trend of rapid global temperature increase since around 1975. CO2: Carbon dioxide. AGW: Anthropogenic global warming; global warming caused by human activities. I am making the case for the existence of AGW, while my opponent is trying to prove that AGW does not exist. ======================== Contention 1: Basic Scientific Argument ======================== The sun radiates electromagnetic waves onto the earth. They pass through the atmosphere, but are absorbed by the ground. When molecules on the ground absorb the electromagnetic radiation, they then re-emit it as infrared radiation. Infrared has a longer wavelength, so some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases β namely water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) β absorb it and turn it into thermal energy (a.k.a. heat). This traps heat, causing the earth's temperature to increase. Because of the greenhouse effect, the more greenhouse gases there are, the hotter it gets. This effect isn't much like a greenhouse, but I will nonetheless use the term. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels remained in the 180 to 300 ppm (parts per million) range [1]. But as of 2007, CO2 levels were at 390 ppm [2]. The environment was relatively stable for hundreds of thousands of years, so why the sudden change? Human emissions can only be responsible. Humans have been emitting CO2 in vast quantities since the mid-70's: our cars emit it, our factories emit it, even our homes emit it. ======================== Contention 2: Scientific Consensus ======================== It is important to remember that science is not a democracy. But if nearly all scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. And nearly all scientists support AGW. I: Scientific Societies Many scientific societies have advocated for AGW. At this time, it is important to remember that scientific societies are not advocacy groups. But these societies found AGW so important that they felt they had to endorse it. The national scientific societies of 21 countries have endorsed AGW: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Caribbean, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South, Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States [3]. The following societies have also endorsed AGW: Network of African Science Academies, National Research Council, European Science Foundation, World Meteorological Organization, Federation of American Scientists, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science [4]. This is far from a complete list, but is meant to give an idea of how many scientists support AGW. This list represents hundreds of thousands of scientists. II: Peer-Reviewed Papers Perhaps more important than the endorsement of scientific societies is peer-reviewed papers. In 2004, Science magazine conducted a search for scientific papers on the topic of global warming [5]. They searched through all papers with the keywords "climate change", for a total of 928 scientific articles. Here is a quote from [5]: {quote} The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. {/quote} ======================== Contention 3: Risk Management ======================== Let's assume that it is equally likely that global warming is man-made and that it is natural. In these circumstances, what are the worst-case scenarios? We assume that global warming is man-made, when it is actually natural. Worst-case scenario, our futile efforts cause an economic crash and we go into another great depression. Now let's say we assume that global warming is natural, when it is actually man-made. The benefit here is that we don't spend any time worrying about how we're all going to die. The bad news is, the human race is in a complete wreck. Expensive natural disasters have destroyed the economy. Millions are homeless and jobless, and thousands are dead. Not so good. So when these two cases are equally likely, it is far riskier to assume that global warming is natural. Actually, it's arguable that the economic crash caused by a shift in energy sources was actually inevitable, and even lessened. If we are forced to drive efficient cars and use renewable energy sources, it will be harmful to some big energy companies. But we would have run out of fossil fuels eventually. When we run out of fossil fuels, it will be heavily devastating. But if we make the shift now, because of global warming, we can make it slow enough so that big corporations have time to adapt. Additionally, "green" technologies are looking to be a sound investment. Developing them may fuel the economy more effectively than many current technologies. Assuming that global warming is man-made, far from ruining the economy, may actually help it. Even if we were 90% certain that global warming is natural, we should still take precautionary steps to prevent global warming. Even if the chance of mass destruction is only 10%, it's still 10%. We'd be playing Russian Roulette with the planet. And Russian Roulette never ends well. *** I thank my soon-to-be opponent and look forward to a fun debate. *** References [1] http://www.newscientist.com... [2] http://www.newscientist.com... [3] http://logicalscience.com... [4] http://www.aaas.org... [5] http://www.sciencemag.org... |
47 | 6c734766-2019-04-18T13:20:17Z-00004-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be given less to the children Giving homework is beneficial for students in many ways. It teaches the student about time management and makes them sincere. It helps the student to recapitulate the lessons done at school so that they don't lag behind. It also teaches them the art of planning and organizing their studies one after another to get good grades. Homework also helps the teacher to asses the ability of the student and she can help the student to improve his or her weaknesses. But most importantly it makes the students study and helps them to realize that even if they don not like to do the homework sometimes they have to do things in life they do not want to. So the pressure which is created is actually good because it helps them to face reality and also their life Thank you |
19 | 63347646-2019-04-18T17:41:45Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Rebuttalsi) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegalThe first premiseCon concedes this.The second premiseCon says: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored.Con may've misunderstood me here. The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman can be changed, as Con admits. But my point here was that there is no real reason to have Gay marriage be illegal. One president oculd decide to make forks illegal, and my point would be the same, that there would be no real reason to make forks or Gay marriage illegal.The third premiseCon says: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal?The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral.Con may've misunderstood my argument that says that Gays should be able to marry whoever they want. I said that Gays should have this right because straight people have this right, and there is no reason why straight and gay people are inequal.ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizensCon says: I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals.So why should gay marriage be illegal?1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy.2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.Con's first argument here is that Gay and straight people have the same sort of restrictions and limitations. However, this is false. As a straight person can marry a straight person, and a straight person can marry a gay person of the opposite sex (however, this would contradict the homosexual's sexual orientation), but a Gay person cannot marry without the marriage contradicting the homosexual's sexual orientation. But a straight person can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation. Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same restrictions in marriage as heterosexual people do.Next, Con gives us two reasons as to why Gay marriage should be illegal. I will rebut them now.1. Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality.2. The point made by Con here could've been made when the same issue was happening but with interracial marriage instead of Gay marriage. Everyone seems to be accepting of interracial marriage now, so perhaps if Gay marriage was legal, then we would be accepting of Gay marriage.Another point that could be made in rebuttal to this point is that no matter what someone's opinion is, it shouldn't interfere with justice. I could be part of a majority that things that women are stupid and are only useful as sex tools, but I could not use my opinion to interfere with justice, meaning a law that states that women being useful and being able to do everything that men could do.I'm intrigued to hear Con's response. |
41 | a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans. |
33 | ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. I accept your challenge, Although I believe in the pro, I will try and argue for the con |
16 | 917a6a48-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00016-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Caging people for possessing a drug is wrong The harm created by addictive drugs isn't just to the person taking the drugs; drug addicts who can't finance their addiction will mug innocent members of the public in order to pay for their habit. It is not prison that ruins someone's life: it is the addiction itself, that drains their bank account, turns them to crime and ruins personal and family relationships they have. To protect the public, and to help prevent other harms, it is only right to continue the prohibition of drugs as it stands. Saying that drug A and drug B are legal, so all drugs should be, is a misnomer. There are plenty of legal 'drugs', largely for medicinal purposes. As for alcohol and nicotine, no one is suggesting that these are 'good' drugs. They too cause harm, but their continued legal status doesn't mean other harmful drugs should be legalised. When addicts commit a crime, they go away for that crime, so to say that "the real crime is mugging" means nothing. If they are found in possession of quantities of illegal materials, they go away for that; when caught mugging, they go away for that. Prison may not be perfect. Rehabilitation programmes should be better funded and more widely provided, yes, but just because they aren't at the moment doesn't mean drugs should be legalised. As for how many people take drugs: lots of respectable people (including George Washington) kept slaves but it never made it any more right. Such an appeal to authority is illogical. They should be afraid, because they are in positions of responsibility. Just as they would be fired if they were found to turn up to work drunk, so too should they not be encouraged to turn up rubbing their noses from snorting coke. |
2 | 65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. To address your claims of the dangers of vaping: There is a difference between a substance possibly having side effects in unhealthy people and a substance definitely causing cancer. The risks of smoking compared to those of vaping are like the risks of walking on the highway compared to the risks of walking on the sidewalk. Vaping is mostly safe, and the same arguments you made against its safety can be made for caffeinated beverages and fast food, so I assume that you want those banned too. What you have yet to do is form an argument explaining why smoking and vaping should be banned, and you were not clear with your last sentence. Your initial post said you wanted smoking and vaping to be illegal. Are you now saying you want them to only be illegal is another person is nearby? What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Is it still a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in his or her own home and others are around, that should be a crime? You need to make your position clear. You should also explain why you think that whatever you are arguing to ban should be illegal. As to why I am against what you initially posted, laws that ban activities that only harm the individual partaking in the activity(assuming that the individual has been apprised of the dangers) are unjust. This has been shown in our various drug laws which have been more damaging to society than the drugs they banned. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or by myself on a street corner, then nobody is affected except for myself. This is especially true with vaping because unlike smoking, vapor does not linger and the vaporizer stops putting out fumes when I am not puffing it. If you think that it should be illegal to smoke near others, then if I walk up to a smoker who is smoking, should he be arrested? Are you talking about smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already banned so that workers are not exposed to concentrated smoke. |
48 | e62a27a7-2019-04-18T11:20:35Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers |
8 | 6702cb88-2019-04-18T11:57:24Z-00006-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Round 1: Accept my challenge Round 2: Make your first argument Round 3: Build upon your argument and counter my argument (if necessary) Round 4: Bring your argument to a conclusion I'm very interested in what the pro/for side has to say. Please, this is just a debate. I don't want any insults or swearing. Thank you. |
17 | 2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff. |
15 | f6daa834-2019-04-18T16:04:36Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) I have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time with this debate. Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My case is as represented by this syllogismP1 : Killing or toruring animals is cruel and unethical. P2 : Animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. C1 : Using animals for research is cruel and unethical. P3(a) : Animal research is expensive and unreliable. P3(b) : Advancements in science and technology has brought about alternatives for the expensive,immoral and unreliable method of using animals for research animal researchC2 : Animals need no longer be used in research__________________________________________________________________________________________________And now i will be offering arguments for each of my premises. Premise 1: Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and distress it is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our benifits. Research on animals involves them undergoing a great deal of hardship,pain and possibly meeting their deaths in an unnatural way. Human beings consider themselves superior to animals based on the fact that we have the ability to reason and have greater intellect however, science has shown that animals can have cognitive faculties that are much superior to human beings[1]. Animals in actaulity possess abilities that are only different from that of a human They are not inferior and have only been under-rated due to humans' fixation on language and technology. Animals also show incredible social and kinaesthetic intelligence, only that, their way is quite different and divergent from ours because of which their abilities are belittled and go unacknowledged[1]. A quick read throught these two articlesArticle 1: . http://www.cracked.com...Article 2: . http://www.buzzfeed.com...is enough to realize how varied yet phenominal some of their capabilities are. Animals are intelligent in their own ways and assuming them to be inferioir to us and exploiting the fact that they are defenceless for our own gains is extremely preposterous, inhumane and egocentric. ___________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 2: Each year, more than 100 million animalsβincluding mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birdsβare traumatized and killed in the United States itself in laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to themβthey are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The sentient thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. [2] Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U. S. , the most commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). [2]I think this report sums up and proves beyond any rational doubts that animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 3(a,b): Gallup polls have found that more than 40 percent of U. S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. The reality is that the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable[2]according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans. " This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We have moved away from studying human disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. β¦ The problem is that it hasn't worked, and it's time we stopped dancing around the problem. β¦ We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. "[2][2]The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2013, every one has failed to demonstrate a benefit to humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work. "[2]These are not anomalies. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, "Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies. "[2]Also the animals that are to be used for testing have to be bred and kept alive till they are needed and because of this animal research becomes very expensive. Most of the money that goes into Animal research comes from the pockets of the public with or without their knowledge. [2]Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones whoβknowingly or unknowingly βfund animal experimentation. [2] But luckily with the advancements in medical and scientific research, forward thinking scientists have developed more humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods and alternatives for the expensive,outdated and unreliable method of animal research. Two major alternatives in vivo-animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects. [3]These methods have proved to be cheaper faster and more accurate than animal research_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Rebuttals: PRO's arguments were mainly centered around mice and animal testing used in the medical field, I would like to remind PRO that mice are not the only animal species that are being used for research and animal research is used not only in the medical field but also in the cosmetics and consumer production area. This means lives are being tortured and sacrificed merely for humans to maybe look good in the next party we go. The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives. Addressing to PRO's arguments about animal research finding cure for some diseases,something which offers a few advantages but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, on the whole, is still disadvantageous. Animal research may have been the cause of curing some deseases, Yes, but at what costs? Hundreds of failed experiments with probably thousands or even more animals brought to UNnatural deaths just to save a few people from dying 'Naturally-brought-deaths',How is this worth the price? .Also PRO's job is to show that animals SHOULD be used for research. And in order to fulfil his BOP he must argue for the animals as whole and all researches that involve animals. Only then will he meet his BOP. Sources: 1 : . http://phys.org...2 : . http://www.peta.org...3 : . http://en.wikipedia.org...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And answering to your questions,I'm neither and I believe in 'a god',if you have furthur questions like these you can just shoot me a message I'll be glad to address them. Back to you PRO! |
12 | 3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of "the pill" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow! |
31 | f16b81c2-2019-04-18T17:49:39Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | NDE's are constituted as evidence for an afterlife (1) Realistic OBEs http://www.infidels.org... - There are many recorded incidences of discrepancies between OBEs and reality. This source has examples, including, but not limitted to: - a WW2 veteran's account of his NDE during which he had an OBE and appeared to be looking at his body from an above vantage point. Little did he know at the time, there were two people by his side who he failed to see. - a woman who had an OBE during surgery and claimed to see a tray with a letter on it over the operating table. - a child who saw her teacher in the hospital during and NDE, even though her teacher never visited her. - a woman who had an OBE during a heart bypass operation and claimed to see her heart beating on the table next to her, but her heart was never removed from her body. These discrepancies indicate that OBEs are dreamlike products of the brain under extreme stress. http://mindhacks.com... As for blind people seeing: this source shows that blind people are capable of seeing visual hallucinations on LSD. (2) Seeing deceased relative without knowledge of them being dead You have no source for this case. (3) Child NDEs similar to Adult NDEs. http://www.infidels.org... There are cases that show that NDEs are affected by cultural expectation. One case includes a child's NDE during which she claimed to see Jesus, although in the appearance of Santa Claus. |
28 | 7c83e847-2019-04-18T16:13:26Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should not be legalized The main reason why prostitution should be legalised is health related. Right now prostitution is the leading cause of STDs, but only because it is illegal and practised on street corners. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would be checked constantly and clients could be required to prove they are healthy. In Australian brothels all men must be checked before going there. As long as prostitution is illegal, it is impossible to control their health. Legalizing it, however, allows you to check both the prostitutes and their clients constantly in order to significantly reduce infections. Also, legalising prostitution would eliminate most pimps, because prostitutes would be able to work on their own. Sure, some would still work for pimps, but they would clearly act very differently. The reason pimps can abuse prostitutes is because they cannot call the police or complain in any way. Legalizing prostitution would give prostitutes a chance to report the abusive pimps to the police without risking their own freedom. Human trafficking would be just the same if prostitution was legal. Legalizing prostitution doesn't mean legalizing human trafficking. Also, legalizing prostitution wouldn't have any effect of human trafficking, it wouldn't make it easy or encourage more people to do it. Legal prostitution would also mean a very different work space for prostitutes. As long as prostitution is illegal, they must work on the streets. Legalizing it would allow them to work in more decent and safe conditions. This would also solve the problem of safety. Prostitutes are very vulnerable. This is why most serial killer kill prostitutes. When you allow prostitutes to work in decent, clean, safe, legal brothels, you also protect them from murderers or abusive clients. These are the main benefits of legalizing prostitution. I don't have much time so I will post my rebuttals in the next round. |
11 | df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00004-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Muslims should be accepted in America I will let the opposition make the first move, but my argument is this: -Muslims are unjustly discriminated against in America and most Western Countries and this should stop. |
26 | 98199179-2019-04-18T19:09:22Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Tests/projects should be the only decisive factors in determining a high school student's grade "High school Student" is clearly on the title of this entire debate. The point of school is to educate and tests is the most effective way of determining how much a student has learned from a teacher are tests. Nervousness This is a ridiculous argument my opponent has stated time and time again about how school is to prepare students to be effective in real life. Well when will a student to get over there nerves? being nervous is just an excuse and real life situations will not accept excuses. At the end of medical school you still take a test at the end to obtain a medical license, at the end of college a student must pass all their mid terms and finals before being able to get their degree because college professors only care about those tests, at the end of law school you have to take the bar exam to get a license to practice law, they need to pass a driving test to get a drivers license, you even need to pass a test to sell real estate. Life will have a test for everything fail any of these tests, a person cannot get a degree, be a doctor, lawyer, or even drive a car. Teaching a student that there are moments where they cannot fail is more of a wake up to reality than teaching them working hard everyday will get them what they want because it doesn't. Daily work in class and classroom attendance Okay lets say everyone does not go to class and just arrive to the times when there is going to be a test. Well Con let me ask you if kids do not go to school how will they know when the test is? If a teacher was a teacher who chose random times to distribute tests then the student would feel more pressure to go to class everyday on the fear that a test might come at any time. Daily work does not measure anything lets compare it to like P.E if a student dresses everyday but runs a 15minute mile time and cannot reach the minimum requirements to pass a physical exam, should they just pass because they try hard everyday? No, that would be ridiculous you cannot pass a student just because they show effort in everyday work they have to prove it by passing a test. Same for other subjects a child who do not pass algebra tests obviously does not know algebra. Cheating on a test You can cheat on a test okay that is a sure possibility. But at least a test is monitored by an instructor to at least make an attempt to stop you from cheating. Homework is take at home not monitored so the chances of cheating of that is really high. Classwork everyone communicates with each other so they will all just listen to the smartest student to get the answers they need. Classroom attendance and participation should not be a factor to a students grade because some students just do not like to answer questions and attendance is just showing up it does not prove anything about a student's knowledge. The chances of cheating on your daily work is a lot easier than cheating on a test because basically the teacher isn't monitoring it. The point of school is to educate students and tests are universally agreed upon by colleges (since most college professors base their grade on tests) as a way to determine if a student has learned the material. Since high school should prepare students to move onto a higher level which is college they should teach students early on the college system and base their grades on tests. |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00005-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution |
36 | 7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is the hardest sport Golf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time. |
28 | cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal. legalization makes prostitution saferIf sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants. (Another debate of mine on this topic never really took place, so I copied and pasted the opening arguments. )I am surprised that you are against legalization of prostitution, because on your profile you claim to be libertarian. My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties. |
33 | 34abd0bc-2019-04-18T16:27:49Z-00000-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | People have become overly dependent on technology Tsk, tsk. Using a whole round to personally attack me, and I'm using a computer, so therefore, you are the dumbass. But anyways, Technology = not okay |
1 | 7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | why should teachers be armed well think about sandy hook go to this website and read it and then tell me what u think of this http://www.usnews.com... |
10 | 3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00008-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids You want to do what is best for your children. You know about the importance of car seats, baby gates and other ways to keep them safe. But, did you know that one of the best ways to protect your children is to make sure they have all of their vaccinations? Immunizations can save your child"s life. Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States. Vaccination is very safe and effective. Vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful review by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Vaccines will involve some discomfort and may cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection but this is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and trauma of the diseases these vaccines prevent. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare. The disease-prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children. Immunization protects others you care about. Children in the U.S. still get vaccine-preventable diseases. In fact, we have seen resurgences of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) over the past few years. Since 2010, there have been between 10,000 and 50,000 cases of whooping cough each year in the United States and about 10 to 20 babies, many of which were too young to be fully vaccinated, died each year. While some babies are too young to be protected by vaccination, others may not be able to receive certain vaccinations due to severe allergies, weakened immune systems from conditions like leukemia, or other reasons. To help keep them safe, it is important that you and your children who are able to get vaccinated are fully immunized. This not only protects your family, but also helps prevent the spread of these diseases to your friends and loved ones. Immunizations can save your family time and money. A child with a vaccine-preventable disease can be denied attendance at schools or child care facilities. Some vaccine-preventable diseases can result in prolonged disabilities and can take a financial toll because of lost time at work, medical bills or long-term disability care. In contrast, getting vaccinated against these diseases is a good investment and usually covered by insurance. The Vaccines for Children program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children from low-income families. To find out more about the VFC program,. Immunization protects future generations. Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future. |
38 | 52b00761-2019-04-18T12:09:12Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | The option to abort should be the mother's choice Answers What assumptions do you have regarding the unborn having human rights? The one thing that a human and all living things in the environment have is sentience. Merriam-Webster defines "sentience" as feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought (8). This is something that the fetus takes a while to develop. The Scientific American in September of 2009 shows that the neural networks needed to perceive and think are not developed until the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy (8). Thus, it is unjustified to give human rights to something that has no way to even perceive these rights over those of the mother's. Do you believe in the situational ethics that utilitarianism espouses or do you assume moral realism? For the judges who may be unaware, moral realism is the idea that there are moral truths and facts (9). Utilitarianism needs to be applied as bioethicists do in their decision-making process. This was mentioned beforehand, but the World Health Organization explains this by offering examples when restricting rights is needed. For instance, the SARS disease prompted a response by the US and Asia to shut down social events and quarantined people. In hindsight, these actions were not necessary and people's rights were violated, yet it is still justified because the outcome was potentially catastrophic and had to be contained. The spread of harm to others based off the decision of a few is also a moral qualm that needs to be considered too, and maximizing good for people must be contained by the granting of rights. All I claim is that there needs to be shown a net benefit to restricting the rights of women to choose abortion, or the restricting of the mother's right to liberty is not justified. Can rights be taken away? Certainly, if there is justification for them that results in the betterment of society for the whole. The social contract is a good model here then, since people give up certain rights to live in a civil society with protection from the government. This idea means that if one lives in a society, laws are necessary to restrict liberty in some cases which is measured against utility to the people. Which is more absolute, the right to liberty or life? I don't see why we can't achieve both under the resolution, so since both can be achieved I will say that both are equally important. C3: Abortion affects women disproportionately The idea that women should not decide the medical operations that she undergoes is ridiculous, but that is the resolution. For the resolution "The option to abort should be the mother's choice" He is saying that mothers should not be the ones given the option to abort, not that the practice should be banned. This has nothing to do with the moral implications of aborting a pregnancy. What the resolution is asking me to prove is that when abortion is available, should it be the patient that gets the right to the option of abortion, or another party? In the US, where abortion is legal, the right of the women to determine whether to undergo the medical procedure is waived, and determined by some unknown party since my opponent did not specify it. I have proven the practical effects of abortion denial, since that will likely happen if the women are not given that right, yet there are problems in relation to denying women the option to it in place of another party. Since undergoing abortion will have dire impacts to the patient's social standing due to stigma, clearly the person who is most affected, the patient, should be deciding whether to have the procedure. The University of Chicago in 2011 offered a survey that studied the effect that stigma plays in abortions, and concluding that nearly 60% of women feel the need to keep their abortion a secret from friends and family, and 17% of women believe that their medical practitioner would treat them differently if they knew about the abortion (1). This is not helped by events such as the recent Planned Parenthood shooting in Chicago which killed three people as USA Today reports last year (2). Consider these effects in the rest of the developing world which is already entrenched in sexism and realize the effects are manifold. In countries like Yemen, where women have no protection under the law, you are further withering away their ability to make medical decisions by my opponent's case. By giving this right to another party, you are substantially reducing the right to autonomy in making medical decisions for no good reason, proving a harm under the Utilitarian standard, and thus my opponent's case. C4: Medically needed abortions Despite popular claims from people like Joe Walsh who believe that there isn't "one instance" in which an abortion will save the mother's life, the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2012 fact checked this statement and found absolutely no basis for its claims, while also citing information from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which concluded that 600 women die a year due to complications in childbirth, and the number would be much higher if access to abortions didn't save people's lives. This information is furthered by the Guttmacher institute in 1998, which after conducting a study on 1,773 women, found that 2.3% of them did so because of potential danger to lives. Examples of a condition that necessitates abortion could include Ectopic pregnancies, where a fetus develops outside of the uterus where it is supposed to (3). The amount of these pregnancies has increased even with medical technology becoming incredibly refined in recent years. In Northern Europe and the US there was increased prevalence, with Ectopic pregnancies being roughly 5 times as prevalent in 2000 than 1970 according to the NCBI in August of 2000 (4). Ectopic pregnancies are classified by the National Institute of Health as life threatening and an instance in which the fetus will not live either (5). The sort of uneasiness in providing abortions has put a significant burden on health care providers who provide the service. One Wisconsin provider told Rewire Magazine in 2012 that physicians typically struggle in allowing for abortions when it threatens the mother's life. "Should an abortion be considered when there is only a 20% risk of death to the mother?" The provider asks (6). If there is a risk to a mother's life, not only should she ought to know, but the idea that physicians face significant moral boundaries to performing an abortion shows that even if a woman is likely to die, there might still be problems in allowing abortions. If a woman has the right to an abortion, this problem is averted as she could undergo the medical procedure by consenting to the operation. Since this is taken away by my opponent, the violation of the mother's rights is at risk. CX Why would the resolution only specify that women couldn't make these decisions if you want to outlaw abortion as opposed to just saying Resolved: Abortion should be banned? How would allowing unsafe abortions to become more prevalent via the taking away of rights from women be a benefit to the fetus anyway if it dies with the mother? Why should we value the baby over the mother in the case of life-threatening abortions? What is the benefit of reverting to "moral facts" in this debate if there is literally no right to liberty for women to be choosing their own procedure anyway? What party, if not women, would be determining who gets an abortion since women will not receive the option? Could this unknown party force women to undergo abortions if there are population growth spikes as the right is seemingly not given to women, but not established to be illegal? 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) |
15 | daece536-2019-04-18T15:14:44Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Rights Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments? |
42 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
48 | 57e0369e-2019-04-18T12:07:03Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Should Youth have the right to vote I believe that Youth Should have the right to vote and here is why. #1 People of all ages are required to pay income and sales taxes; therefore, denying them the right to vote is taxation without representation. #2 Children are legally permitted to have sex or drive a car in some countries, which are more dangerous and difficult than voting. #3 Voter turnout among youth will improve if young people get in the habit of voting before they reach 18 and go to colleges far away from their state of residency, like it did in Germany when some states lowered their voting age for municipal elections. #4 Education for and about democracy would be better served if there were no voting age. #5 Government entitlements suppress fertility, which means the youth demographic is systematically suppressed, with no political power to offset the effect. #6 Governments derive their just authority from the consent of the governed. To be legitimate, those who govern and those who legislate must be elected by the people, not a special subset of the people, such as those over the age of X years. #7 Those who oppose Youth Suffrage say that youth do not to have sufficient understanding of the realities of life to participate in voting. In response to this, most youth suffrage advocates point out these are the identical arguments used against women's suffrage, as well as the abolition of property requirements, in the past. Likewise, mental capacity or knowledge is often not a bar to the elective franchise. |
16 | 3cd36a40-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drugs should be decriminalized Drugs are bad. I am very proud to say that I have never so much as tried any recreational drugs. I see no compelling reason as to why I should try any recreational drugs. I care too much about my health. Alcohol is bad. I am very proud to say that I have never dome more than take a few sips of alcohol. I see no compelling reason as to why I should drink alcohol. I care too much about my health. They tried outlawing alcohol once. It didn't work very well. People made their own alcohol and it caused huge amounts of crime. In fact, prohibition was so unsuccessful and counterproductive that it was repealed just 13 years later. Prohibition was clearly a mistake. That's fine. Mistakes help us move forward. Or do they? We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs. As of 2004, nearly 20% of American prisoners are in prison on drug charges [1]. This tells us a few things, which include the fact that the war on drugs has hardly been successful. It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property. We happen to be in an economic downturn. If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy. And remember that big deficit that the US has? And you know those income taxes that we all hate? Well, we wouldn't have to increase income tax as much if we legalized and taxed drugs. Why stay in the US? If drugs were legalized in Mexico, it would virtually end the drug war. Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers? It's really the same way inside the US, though on a much smaller scale. If drugs were legalized, there would be fewer gangs since it would be easier, cheaper, and safer to buy drugs at a store. There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers. The former is obviously a group of people who we want to be hurt, and the latter we actually also want to be hurt. We don't want them to be hurt because we have a deep-seated hatred for police officers, but we want them to hurt because police officers get cut when there are too many, so when police officers get cut, it means that our crime rate is going down, which is a good thing. I fear that I may have already said too much for an introduction, but if anybody is still willing to join my poorly organized debate, I welcome it! 1. http://www.albany.edu... |
44 | 9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Jesus Christ, way to f*ck up a troll debate dude....The point of a troll debate is to use semantical arguments to argue your stance in an attempt to humor the voters, NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. Using serious arguments in a troll debate is the equivalent of a full forfeit too.... Ill see what I can do to restore the humor in this but seriously you gave me NOTHING to work with and now the whole debate is shot to hell. "The pay gap between men and women is a myth[1], Men have to deal with their image just like women[2] and men have far fewer health benefits than women do"The man who claimed that the pay gap is a myth was arrested in 2008 for trying to sharpen his penis in a pencil sharpener so that when he has sex with women he can stab them to death. The man clearly has it out for women and tries to discredit them whenever he can. He actually published a book about how Hitler was secretly a woman just to try to disprove feminism.... And men dont deal with their image JUST LIKE women do. No guy in the history of guyness has ever had to spend more then 30 minutes in the bathroom making sure they look good before going out to a dinner, or had to put that icky green stuff on their face to exfoliate their skin or whatever. Lastly OF COURSE men have fewer health benefits then women. Last I checked men dont bleed out of their penis once a month"Our society akins breast cancer to women, and supports it so as to help women. This is proof that we value women"Oh yay, we value women enough that we want to keep them alive, HOW THOUGHTFUL OF MEN. The point of Vagina day is to celebrate all of the good aspects that women offer society BESIDES BEING ALIVE, like having good taste in decorations, making sure us men have good hygiene, doing all the stuff guys are too dumb to do in the first place, everything. "So from this you can take home that we already place a huge value on women. There simply isn't a need for another holiday to express our gratitude towards them"How typical for a MAN to convince himself that we already shell out enough for a women.... Men always think that they satisfy women but women know damn well that men never shell out enough, they go good at first but then finish early and then take a nap." It's for that very reason that a such a huge gap exists in college enrollment between men and women"No its not, its because men are IDIOTS. Look up 'dumbass stunt' anywhere on youtube or the internet and I guarantee you that 99 out of 100 results will feature something a guy did. Hell, look at any episode of Tosh.0 and all the stupid stunts they feature are done by MEN. The reason women are enrolled in college more then men is because men are idiots, not because women are somehow favorited voer men. "Men would go out an do backbreaking labor which ultimately put them in very poor shape physically and health-wise, whereas women would stay in the safety of the home so that they could be healthy enough to raise children."How in the hell does doing intense labor make somebody in POOR shape? Doing hard labor makes men STRONGER not weaker, thats why there are gyms ever two blocks in America! This Doctor is clearly an idiot, and no surprise HES A MAN. I guess they just let anyone be a docter these daysForfeited arguments: - Con forfeits that it would be cool to have parades with giant balloon vaginas - Con does not dispute the title of Vagina Day - Con forfeits that "Vagina Day" rolls off the tip of the tongue - Con fails to give a single Vagina Joke - Con failed to give an example of other groups of people who dont have some holiday like women do (only a fraction of women are mothers) - Con forfeits that God spent a lot of time first making the Vagina and that he did a damn good job at it - Con forfeits basically everything since he decided to take a troll debate seriously and new arguments cant be introduced in the last round....You know what, just tie it. Ill redo this debate and debate someone who knows what a troll debate actually is. |
20 | b81e7ad4-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | should chocolate milk be served in school Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamin |
34 | b656fdc4-2019-04-18T17:08:16Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites should have age restrictions Nowadays, there are a lot of social networking sites. People post information about themselves, communicate with other users, share their photos. Today, almost every child has account in one of the social networking sites. I believe that children should be able to enter those sites only at the age of 13 years old. Although, there are no age restrictions, in my opinion, social networks should be age-limited because of following reasons: 1. Nobody checks the information that people post in social networks every day. There are a lot of inappropriate things, language is often bad and vulgar, pictures sometimes can be provocative. Children under age restrictions might be affected by such things because their emotional system and understanding of the world are still unstable. 2. There is a problem of pedophiles. Unfortunately, there are people out there in the Internet who may use children's innocence. Children under age restrictions are not able to identify people who might be dangerous to communicate with. Pedophiles usually choose 11-12 years old children because it is easy to convince them and start a conversation. 3. Those sites often cause addiction. Risk of becoming dependent on social networking sites is even higher among children. They can't assess the situation of how dangerous using those networks might be. Social networks contain a lot of entertaining information. Therefore, children don't even notice how much time they spend on such sites. 4. There is a problem of cyberbullying. Children can't deal with this problem themselves. Bare mind children are not able to withstand the attacks in the Internet. I think that social networking sites must have strict age limits. |
40 | 8e5e6a4-2019-04-18T17:30:51Z-00007-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be abolished There's many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, but I'd like to share the idea that I think is most logical and reasonable. Sure, it would be a lot more expensive to keep people in prison rather than just executing them but it's a lot more effective. By executing criminals, as silly as it seems you're actually doing most of them a favor by ending their lives. Most people would rather die than to stay in prison, and they couldn't live with whatever they've done. Also, there are the family and friends of the prisoner. Even though there are some cases where the prisoner's crime relates to how he grew up in his family, the family in most cases is in no way responsible. To execute a prisoner would have his parents, children, or siblings alike to hate the state forever for doing that to him. That's why if you think about it, life imprisonment is actually a lot more of a punishing factor than execution for the prisoner himself. |
21 | 902a4234-2019-04-18T18:12:17Z-00006-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Story Debate Destiny pulled out her cell phone and stared at it. Thoughts raced through her head. Should I? Shouldn't I? Should I? Her cell phone trembled in her hand. She flipped it open and dialled. She brought the shaking cell phone up to her head. "Hello?" "Hey, Johnny." "Hey Sis, what's up?" "I just wanted to let you know, I'm doing this to protect you." "Doing what?" "I love you, Johnny." Destiny pulled the phone away from her ear and quietly closed the lid. She could still hear her brother shouting out. "Destiny? You there? What's going on??" Destiny turned her phone off and rode onwards to the house. There was no turning back now. It was just as the girl on her phone described, light blue and black. The paint was peeling, the stucco falling off, the windows were cracked, it was a shadow of its former self. Destiny looked at the house apprehensively. Was it safe to go in? She didn't even know these people, they haven't even exchanged names. Was this all a sham, perhaps criminal activity? Destiny inhaled deeply. No, I must go on. I'm doing this for Johnny. I must. I cannot fail. She opened the creaking door and stepped in to the house. The welcome mat spewed a cloud of dust. A cracked mirror stood at the end of the hall. Destiny caught sight of herself. The mirror showed a 15 year old girl, dirty blond hair, piercing blue eyes, a think grey sweater, and blue jeans. She saw a frightened little girl running from the past. She slowly strode forward, eying the house. To her left was a staircase, on the wall there were photos. She walked forward and took one of the photos off the wall. She blew the dust off. It was a little girl, she looked just like Destiny... She put the picture back on the wall and looked at the next picture. The boy looked so familiar, it looked like... She turned from the wall breathing heavily. What was going on here? She calmed down. It was just a coincidence, nothing wrong here. She continued breathing, deeply, her eyes darting around. The shadows looked like they hid monsters; every creak sent shock waves through her body. She dashed into the living room. Two raggedy sofas beckoned for her to sit. A coffee table stood in the middle of the room, a coffee cup still on the table. She traversed through the living room, dashing into the kitchen. "Hello? Is anyone here!" There was no answer. Someone should be there. She ran into the kitchen. A table stood there, a layer of dust covering it. A fridge lay in disrepair in the corner, it's door open. A cupboard door hung on it's last hinge, cobwebs stretching out like fingers. Destiny ran into the cellar. It was pitch black. She stopped at the foot of the stairs, breathing heavily. The darkness enveloping her. She backed up, retreating up the stairs. She heard whispers and creaking. Rushing wind was coming up at her from the cellar. Her feet were paralyzed to the staircase. It was coming closer, and closer! A rush of sound washed over her. "GET OUT!" the voice shouted. Destiny screamed and ran up the stairs. She dashed through the kitchen, slamming into the walls. She ran to the door and grabbed it, ready to run out into the day. She glanced behind her. She saw the coffee cup. Steam was rising from it. Destiny froze, staring at the steam. A clawed hand folded over her shoulder. She turned, falling, screaming. Who is behind Destiny? |
43 | 3b3189a0-2019-04-18T11:31:50Z-00003-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | smoking should be banned Smoking affects the population in many ways. It affects smokers' health and controls their smoking habits and use of time, and the spiraling cost of tobacco makes it an expensive pastime. Secondhand smoke affects others and pollutes the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, children are susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are growing and developing. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have increased risks of sudden infant death syndrome, middle ear infection, asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis. |
31 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
50 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | 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 |
47 | 1733c67d-2019-04-18T11:47:10Z-00005-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework My Position: No homework; homework can cause negative effects. |
13 | 3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00001-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | fossil fuel Contradicting to what my opponent argues, many of these alternatives are been used by many countries in the world. An example of this is Brazil who last year or two started using ethanol products such as sugar cane to manufacture most of their fuel and tend to their needs. Brazil have progressed a lot and in fact, they are the most improved country in the world since the resent years. My opponent mentions that Nuclear fission cases cancer however he failed to mention the fact that Magnetic reactor which are already in use is able to contain and transform these waste into useful materials thereby making Nuclear fission a safer product than that of fossil fuel. Fusion is not a chain reaction, therefore it can be stopped at anytime and there is no threat of a meltdown opponent also states that nuclear fission is more expensive than fossil fuel power but an article from thinkquest.org/ states that nuclear fission is The fuels that could be used are relatively inexpensive and readily available fusion would be a virtually inexhaustible energy supply that could eliminate most of the world's dependence on other fuels. giving all these facts we must see that Nuclear fission energy is a wise and a very good alternative to Fossil Fuel. Geothermal Energy: I agree that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers but geothermal energy can also be drawn from the earths core as I mentioned in my previous debate. an article from darvil.clara.net states that Geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating and these countries have progressed energy wise. geothermal energy is also an energy efficient alternative and could serve as more than 85 percent of the earths power need. my next point leads me to solar power. The production of energy from the use of fossil and some renewable fuels can be noisy, yet solar energy produces electricity very quietly. One of the great pros of solar energy is the ability to harness electricity in remote locations that are not linked to a national grid. A prime example of this is in space, where satellites are powered by high efficiency solar cells. The installation of solar panels in remote locations is usually much more cost effective than laying the required high voltage wires. Solar energy can be very efficient in a large area of the globe, and new technologies allow for a more efficient energy production on overcast/dull days. Solar panels can be installed on top of many rooftops, which eliminates the problem of finding the required space for solar panel placement. Another great pro of solar energy is the cost. Although the initial investment of solar cells may be high, once installed, they provide a free source of electricity, which will pay off over the coming years. The use of solar energy to produce electricity allows the user to become less dependent on the worlds fossil fuel supplies. Wind power: unlike what my opponent said, wind power is a cost efficient way and does not require the wind to blow as more renewable energy is developed, the nation's electricity supply will balance renewable energy supplies with regional demands. Studies have shown that significant investment in offshore wind on the Atlantic Coast would virtually always be producing electricity β so if the wind stops blowing in Massachusetts, South Carolina's offshore resource may supply power to the Northeast. comparison with other anthropogenic activities, the climate impact of wind power is negligible. The continued burning of fossil fuels and unsustainable development inflicts the greatest harm on the earth's climate. If wind energy generated enough electricity to meet current electricity usage, this would amount to about 6% of all other wind disturbances, like reforestation efforts and tall buildings. This would have no significant impact on global wind patterns. Additionally, wind turbines could have a side benefit of decreasing temperatures at higher latitudes, offsetting the anticipated warming caused by greenhouse gases. we could see that fossil fuel is not the answer but better alternatives are. http://na.oceana.org... |
32 | f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel |
32 | e109226c-2019-04-18T13:02:48Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Democracy should be replaced with artificial intelligence You're changing your original set of arguments once the weaknesses are pointed out... Apart from the power outages, something even worse can and will happen as it has happened in the past [1]. Solar flares, it happens often it will happen again. There are also plenty of near misses [2]. Should a massive solar storm hits the planet all electronics will be gone. Of course, human beings are not affected like, say, advanced AI electronics. Mankind lived through an era without electronics. Electronics can't survive the kind of solar flares mankind has. I didn't say humans wouldn't go about their lives. I said that all the roles and responsibilities of all the people that the people vote into power. That includes mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, president, sheriffs and any and all other people that either gets elected or appointed by those that get voted into power... There is also no reason to believe that this machine will not make bad compromises and short sighted decisions. Make a horrendous decision for the sake of peace thinking that its better to make a terrible decision in the name of peace... Suppose the machine takes a policy of appeasement.. "For the good of people". My argument is that a machine ruling a nation can't handle it based on the fact that the requirements are to vast for a machine. To many roles and responsibilities for a single AI to handle one of the largest nations in the world. Democracy has survived the test of time. It has seen the United States rise from meager power to superpower in less then 200 years. We do away democracy and the machine fails or gets destroyed there will be chaos. Democracy is abolished and all the people that run the federal and state governments are not there to keep things under control when the machine malfunctions, breaks, hacked, or destroyed. However, If the president dies, the vice president takes his place, if the vice president dies, the Speaker of the House of Representatives takes his place, if he dies, President pro tempore of the US Senate takes his place ect... "As governments currently direct money for futile wars and useless improvements, a super-intelligent machine can turn the tide for the good of people." ?... Useless improvements? Improvements is a good thing, it literally betters mankind, the reason for which the world still isn't in the stone age. Why the United States is a superpower. Why the human species are not nomadic tribes... This machine can seriously make bad decisions potentially hurt technological growth if it deems improvements a bad thing. You are actually sounding like this machine is to make decisions not just for the United States but for the entire planet. In which case the the feasibility becomes like 194 times more difficult... A great deal of wars occur to further the nation states that their governments fight. Fighting terrorism is by no means futile war. Those nation states would still act in the best interest and would refuse to listen to a computer. Like North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Middle East and a group of African nations... It is unrealistic. All in all, democracy isn't perfect as I said previously but comparing to all other forms government , including a machine ruling mankind.. Democracy is still the best option. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://science.nasa.gov... |
15 | 908f4e4f-2019-04-18T18:40:43Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | animal testing What on earth do you expect me to reply with? You've simply listed products which have been tested on animals - when I have already stated an argument for cosmetic testing? I'm sure thousands of people wear those products - and they should be glad they were tested on animals, because what if they used it with no previous testing..they could have their eyes burnt on lips swollen, or something else dangerous happen. I've basically just repeated a small minority of what I've already said. So if you're going to debate over animal testing, I suggest you post a convincing argument. That's all. |
14 | 15445abc-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00006-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. In this debate, the overarching themes that I'm going to focus on are morality (with a strong focus on consequentialism) and societal welfare. With this ideal in place, I will move on toward my contentions. Contention 1: Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical. Because bullying leads to negative effects for the individual as well as society and bullying as a result of sexual orientation is so heavily common, a piece of legislation from government focusing on sexual orientation is heavily preferrable. The resulting effects from such legislation show us the practicality, and analyzingSub-point 1a: Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects. Sexual orientation is certainly one of the largest reasons for bullying in the United States: "According to GLSEN's 2009 National School Climate Survey, which polled more than 7,000 self-identified gay and straight students between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one from all fifty states and the District of Columbia from 2008 to 2009, 61 percent of all students felt unsafe at school because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation whereas only 9.8 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their gender and 7.6 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their race or ethnicity (Kosciw et al. 2010). " The methodology of this survey, by the way, is legitimate considering the largeness of the sample and how widespread it is throughout the United States, but the actual population size of the United States is still 10 times larger than the sample size. Other surveys conclude the idea that this is a problem: "LGBT youth regularly face insidious verbal and physical abuse. A recent nationally representative survey of LGBT teens by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 84.6% of those surveyed had been verbally harassed, 40.1% had been physically harassed (pushed or shoved), and 18.8% had been physically assaulted (punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) because of his or her sexual orientation in the past year. " The effects that come from such bullying are incredibly negative: "The detrimental impact of this climate is apparent in the host of negative outcomes that attend gay youth: LGBT children and teenagers report dramatically higher levels of depression and anxiety, as well as decreased levels of self-esteem relative to their heterosexual peers. Of course, gay students are not inherently more likely to experience mental and physical harm; rather, it is "a direct result of the hatred and prejudice that surround[s] them. "Sub-point 1b: Legislation is effective, and alternatives are few. The many legislations in the United States after the suicides of 2010 prove the effectiveness of legislation against LGBT bullying: "Over the years, a small number of states have chosen to extend explicit protection to victims who are bullied based on enumerated personal characteristics. Although enumeration remains a minority position, the most recent spate of anti-bullying statutes offers a promising indication that this may be shifting. Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, and Washingtonβover half of the states enacting statutes in 2010βprovide a list of prohibited bases for bullying behavior, including sexual orientation. These lists are uniformly nonexclusive,to highlight for teachers and school officials certain types of bullying as absolutely prohibited while still reaching bullying based on unlisted characteristics. New York's statute, for instance, encompasses but is not limited to "conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or abuse based on a person's actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. " Gay rights organizations strongly support enumeration, and research indicates that statutes that specifically identify sexual orientation as an impermissible target for bullying lead to a greater decrease in LGBT bullying than those statutes that do not. The Supreme Court, too, has stated that statutory "[e]numeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply. " Similar numbers of students report hearing homophobic remarks frequently in schools with non-enumerated anti-bullying laws (74.3% of students) as in those with no laws at all (75% of students). However, those enrolled in schools with enumerated policies experience less bullying, feel safer overall, and report that teachers are significantly more likely to intervene in instances of anti-gay bullying. These statistics underscore the tremendous potential for enumerated anti-gay bullying legislation to positively impact the lives of LGBT youth. " Alternatives are few and ineffective: "The impact of an unwelcoming school climate is aggravated for students who lack a protective buffer of social support. Studies showthat positive parental practices protect adolescents from involvement in both bullying perpetration and victimization, but sexual minority youth are less likely to receive this support at home. Approximately one third of gay and lesbian teens have suffered verbal abuse or physical violence from a family member as a consequence of coming out, and one half have experienced some form of parental rejection. Although some theorists argue that being an "anonymous and diffuse" minority is beneficial to sexual minorities, it can also make it more difficult for LGBT youth to identify similar individuals, particularly within their own age group. Facing rejection at home and school because of their sexual orientation, LGBT youth may experience a "narrow view of the options available to deal with recurrent family discord, rejection, or failure [that] contributes to a decision to commit suicide. "" Connolly, Lisa C. "Anti-Gay Bullying in Schools--Are Anti-Bullying Statutes the Solution? " New York University Law Review 87 (2012): 248-83. New York University. Web. <" target="blank">. http://www.law.nyu.edu.........;. |
14 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | 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 |
29 | d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Before I begin, your argument was fine. And thank you for posting, I thought you disappeared, ha ha. [1] The counter-argument Con is making that the plan established is incoherent was expected, and is relatively rinsed and repeated by the Right-Wingers. Thus, a generous rebuttal will be supplied to refute the points made:1a) Illegal immigrants coming into the country do not have to remain illegal immigrants. They can always gain citizenship. Barack Obama has become, as previously stated, more of a Social Democratic president and many of his foreign policies let free-flowing immigration occur, which has increased the amount of illegal immigrants significantly. However, the federal benefits in question that would be hypothetically given to "illegals" are already being given to "legal" immigrants and citizens. Yes, adding a couple thousand or even million more people into the country with these benefits would logically make the government spend more to be able to supply the higher demand for them. But this is a strawmen argument that is found easily debunkable by most: The benefits being given to people more since Obama's election into office are not even scratching the surface of the debt bucket the U.S now owns. In fact it doesn't even hit the top six causes of the U.S's debt. Bush Tax Cuts in 2003 and 2001 were the main source at around that time of deficit, adding an approximation of $1.6 trillion to the already built-up debt. And the other five reasons the economy is so trashy and in the negatives are; health care, medicare, war, economic stimulus [Obama's fault], Great Recession. All of these problems are nowhere near giving people who cross the U.S border "illegally" benefits. And the debt ceiling was rising even without that. While yes, it would wildly increase the amount of debt raining in to terrify the administration, it's not the only thing that would, and it has a minimal effect. And the numbers Con has supplied to state so are wildly over the top. [http://theweek.com...] Yes, what Con is saying about it adding to the debt ceiling is logical, but it would have the least impact. Taxes would have to be raised to keep up with the debt that would become added to the already horrible deficit staining the success of the American economy, but it would not add anymore than the current wars being faught in Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing the U.S. Well after reading quite a few articles, it has been retrieved that these numbers were much higher than most expected. Well, the government does have to sell war bonds, raise taxes and still pay for supplies such as food, armaments, water, rations, armour and vehicles that would be given to soldiers fighting on the front, so it is only logical to assume that the amount of money these wars since 9/11 have costed the U.S a lot of money. https://www.nationalpriorities.org... http://costsofwar.org... http://www.globalresearch.ca... 1b) It was described that the State is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants back to their home land. Well, this logical does seem sensible. People coming across the borders to come into a country in order to save their lives from the tyrant rule and horrible, unbearable crime rates down south? Undermining the legality of those waiting to get their paperwork done? Hmm..Seems like a problem. Well that is, until it is examined closer. To go back to a point previously used, every American in the U.S with the exception of an extremely small minority (actually just 2%), is an illegal immigrant in one respect or another. European colonists (as mentioned in the first round) did come to the land and pillage it, killing people, raping them and exploiting natural resources and the weak technologies the Natives had to try and fend off the newly self-proclaimed enemy with. So if the U.S really wanted to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration, everyone would be kicked out and the Natives would be left to remake their civilization but now with these better technologies. Yes, this argument is almost viewed as irrelevant now, but all sides of the story must be considered when the word 'immigration' comes up. And again, a driving motive for many illegal immigrants to come to the U.S is to find conditions of better living. At one point, immigration should, yes, be trafficked better so over-population does not become an issue, but it's not the U.S needs to be surrounded by electric fences. And the U.S is nowhere near its maximum population. And on top of that, if illegals going to the U.S eventually found there was no space, there would be one more country they could turn to. A country that gets swept under the rug and labeled irrelevant to most new world events...Canada. Canada has a massive amount of land and an extremely limited national population. So, for what it's worth, immigrants coming to the country could literally be passing through to go to Canada because there is space. Work is more affordable there and in most provinces the weather is reasonable. In fact, just going to Nova Scotia, one could easily find available commercial jobs. The U.S is not the only country to be considered with Western immigrants travelling upwards, be it legal or illegal means of travel. [2] The point that providing illegal immigrants benefits would attract more in more significant numbers is actually quite laughable. Because the exact same thing could be said with normal citizens. Implemented Social systems like Welfare and S.S.I could easily draw more citizens to the programs. So the argument is applicable to even legal citizens, not just illegal immigrants. 2a) Illegal immigrants could become legal if they are given the time. Not everyone can afford to waste time waiting in line for a couple of papers to be stamped and approved of by the federal government and U.S border patrol, so sometimes urgency kicks in, and the people will do whatever they have to do to get across the border. Some empathy is needed here. Illegal immigrants should be given a considerable amount of time to get on their feet, then should be provided paperwork, fill it out, and be able to attain citizenship. And another thing, it was never stated that all illegal immigrants should be given these benefits. It would have to be monitored in the same respect that giving these social benefits to legal citizens works. It would just be different in the aspect of legality, because the citizens would not have citizenship for a certain period of time, because again, it is expensive to move between countries, and desperate times call for desperate measures. It would only be ethical to allow illegal immigrants some space at the table. And economically speaking, it's not the worst thing the U.S has gone through to just simply give some of them benefits, granted they are willing to go through the process. 2b) Illegal immigrants can work just as legals can and that was something considered in round one, but it was not necessarily touched upon to a very hard extent. All that was said was that the unemployment rate dropped below 6% for the first time since recession, and that should be able to speak for itself, because it happened upon immigration being made more a free-flowing thing by President Obama, but there's more to the work ethic these illegals provide that is beneficial to the U.S: Military service. Not only are the immigrants in so much of a hurry that they need to pass through the border unseen and without paperwork, but they are literally willing to die for the U.S, a country that would once turn them away. So going back to the point Con made about it being the federal obligation of the U.S government to deport these immigrants, that is false. Obama and the administration of the Pentagon are both allowing illegal immigrants to enlist in the military. Wars often raise taxes but also make countries richer because of that. Not to say that the U.S should constantly go to war until it's out of debt, but this certainly does help the economy push towards the positives. And the military soldiers would also be leaving the country overseas to fight in the Middle East, and it would not be until they had made it out alive that they would receive benefits such as checking into VA hospitals and checks for their service to the country (which those kinds of benefits have been cut anyways lately, which is unfortunate). http://www.politifact.com... https://news.vice.com... http://www.usatoday.com... [3] All immigrants to the U.S, even illegals, are more than capable of making a contribution to the success of the country. Contributions that legal citizens are no more capable of doing than their illegal counter-parts. Being completely honest, immigrants should not have to prove their worthiness to the 'holier-than-thou' U.S anyways, or any country for that matter. Humans should naturally have the right to free exploration, in which they may travel between countries without having to pay ridiculously expensive amounts of money, or proving their legality or anything of the sort, because it's marginalizing and demonizing. It's about as insulting as being referred to as a number tagged onto your chest in a prison. |
2 | d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking is as bad a Obesity Yes but smoking also causes lung cancer and Pregnancy growing slowing down No evidence is needed to just search or look at a smoke packet to see both theses results |
30 | 30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00003-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed Carry on College Campuses Your second sentence says you would "feel very unsafe" should students be allowed to carry their concealed weapons. The problem with this statement is that there is a huge difference in feeling safe and being safe. I'm sure the students at Virginia Tech felt very safe knowing that guns were not allowed on their campus; however, the fact is that no one was able to fight back when that maniac attacked. To clarify my 25% statistic, it is that 25% of all reported crimes on a college campus are rapes, not that 25% of women are raped. Furthermore, your point that rape does not justify murder depends on your moral standards. For example, I would rather a woman shoot and kill an immoral man in self-defense than that immoral man sexually harm her. Prevention of rape is certainly a justified reason for killing. "There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership." Any crime that causes harm to an innocent person should be prevented any way possible. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that person has to use it. There are strict guidelines as to when a person can be justified for using a weapon. As for your point about college students being shot should campus carry be legalized, since Utah first legalized campus carry in 2004, six states have since followed suit. In all that time on over 150 college campuses, there have been only 3 negligent discharges, all of which could have been prevented. Two occurred because the weapon was being carried without a holster and one was because a teacher was showing her new weapon to a coworker. None of these resulted in serious injuries. Many places require that weapons be holstered or cased to prevent things like this from happening. In Point 3, you fail to realize that the "8,275 criminal gun-related homicides" says nothing about cases of unjustified self-defense. Instead, it shows that while 8,275 people committed a criminal act of murder, 230 people were able to defend themselves from harm and put the bad guy six feet under. If you take away concealed carry, you will decrease the number of justified shootings, but would leave those people defenseless in the face of criminals. Now here are some statistics for you. "At the 2013 homicide rate, roughly one in every 285 Americans will be murdered. A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found: " 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives " 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime " 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once" [1] How's that for enough crime to justify concealed carry? When you get to talking about college campuses, there is nothing that will lead a logical person to believe that just because he or she walks onto a campus, that person will not be exposed to criminal activity. While college campuses usually have lower crime rates, they are not crime free. A person who is permitted to carry weapons almost anywhere should not be prevented from doing the same on a college campus where crime is still possible. Here are some more statistics: "A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: " 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" " 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" " 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""[1] Responsibly carrying concealed weapons gives people an effective way to defend themselves. The only reason left to deny a person the right to carry is the very small possibility that someone else will be harmed, and it is not permissible to deny someone a right just because it is accompanied with a minor risk that can be reduced with simple preventative measures. [1]http://www.justfacts.com... |
10 | f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00048-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | All negative points A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7] Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10] Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12] [edit] Population health Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5β30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14] [edit] Cost-effectiveness Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15] [edit] Events following reductions in vaccination In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18] Stockholm, smallpox (1873β74) An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19] In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970sβ80s) A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16] Sweden, pertussis (1979β96) In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20] Netherlands, measles (1999β2000) An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries. UK and Ireland, measles (2000) As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23] Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward) In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26] Indiana, USA, measles (2005) A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28] [edit] Safety Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31] [edit] Vaccine overload Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32] The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31] Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35] [edit] Thiomersal Main article: Thiomersal controversy In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39] [edit] MMR vaccine Main article: MMR vaccine controversy In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51] [edit] Prenatal infection There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54] their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters; their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women; the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations. Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54] [edit] Aluminum Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58] [edit] Individual liberty Further information: Vaccination policy Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61] [edit] Religion Main article: Vaccination and religion Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63] [edit] Alternative medicine Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10] Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66] Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999β2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67] Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10] [edit] Financial motives Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69] In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70] [edit] Dispute resolution Main article: Vaccine court The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73] [edit] History Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74] After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3] In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure. In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox). 1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885. John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916. In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist |
29 | ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00025-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Birthright citizenship incentivizes "anchor babies" for families |
29 | 419baf15-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S. Good Day, I still say that your way isn't going to work about the illegals ALREADY in our country right now. Your solution would only make it easier for those outside the country now to become citizens. It would do nothing to stop the ones already in. That is why mine is the best way to get the illegals OUT and yours is the best way to STOP. Harlan you keep insisting I'm changing the subject I'm not. I'm agreeing with you that yes they have a life here, which is obvious, if they didn't they would leave. But I'm saying just because they have life here isn't a good reason to allow them all to stay. I will admit...YES!!! Deportion is a PUNISHMENT ITS SUPPOST TO BE!!!!!! They came here illegally they should be punished. Now let me rephrase something I said that illegals have been a problem with poverty) shortened) After think it it over realistically I want to rephrase that. Illegals are a problem with lowering the poverty rate. With the illegals taking jobs for lower wages the impoverished who need the money at the bare minimum wage arent getting the job. So they aren't even being paid minimunm wage b/c they don't even have the job. So because the illegals have lower standards the illgals take jobs from employers who want to save a buck or 2. Here's a solution to that. AFTER we deport a good majority of illegals we help Mexico set up a system of minimum wage which will ensure the Mexicanos will make more in THERE OWN COUNTRY. Now the employers will be able to hire the impoverished who's legal families really need it, at a true minimum wage or more. Thus helping get impoverished more jobs to lower the poverty rate. Now the drunk ones who are just boozed underacheivers will probably not bother but th etrue impoverished with a family to feed will finally get a job and get back on track. yes there will be a lot of children orphaned and sent back to Mexico and other sorry countries but it has to be done. The children born on American soil shouldn't get deprived of being Americans based on there parents actions so let them grow up in America. When they turn 18 give them a choice of going back to there homeland or staying like ANY dual citizen. For the ones born in the secondary country bring them back. Yes, they shouldn't be punished for there parents but its what has to be done. If we let the kids stay. orphanages will be fill with little Mexican children. Yes, I agree with your everyone deserves a good life...IF they earn it. Should a homeless family who is barley making it by be given money so they can have a good life? No the people should take responsibility that they have to work up the latter. That is the Capitolist way. The govermnet doesn't mess with your money but you have to work hard to get that money. the illegals shouldn't get a free pass because of where they come from. First let them become citizens through the right way to first of all be covered by the Constitution that gives CITIZENS the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The thing w/ the Constitution is it gives all the rights to CITIZENs not anyone who decides to want to be Americans. You have to work (believe it or not) to have those rights. Then after they become a citizen they can..."pursue Happiness" Goverment is there to help the Citizens of its society. illegals are people who cost that goverment much more than they provide. As you say if the illegals cost us 789,263,000,000 billion dollars compared to 16,000,000,000 they bring in its the goverments duty to do whats best 4 the people to GET RIDE OF THEM AND DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT!!! To make a proposal for a solution that..."compromises" We deport as many illegals as we can lets say clean the lint trap of america. When we have a good majority of illegals out of the U.S. we establish your solution to make becoming a citizen easier. Lets not go overboard to make it easier but still do something so the illegals don't have to resort to breaking in. This way we deal with getting a good amount of illegals out and help prevent future break ins. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.