query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
5 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | 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 |
44 | 992b0216-2019-04-18T14:30:54Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Rebuttal R1: Right to Abstain Con argues that "compulsory voting is inherently anti-democratic" because it denies people the right to abstain from voting. First of all, my opponent is simply wrong. CV doesn't deny people the right to abstain from voting. A voter has the right to spoil a ballot and in effect abstain from voting. This is called informal voting [1]. So Con's claim is simply untrue. Under CV, the people's only "duty is to show up at the polling station, receive a ballot and deposit it, marked or not, into the ballot box" [4]. To justify this, I remind my opponent that citizens have rights and duties, such as jury duty or duty to show in court as a witness if one was served a subpoena. I also remind my opponent that rights are not absolute and can be limited if "only if it can show that the limit is set out in a law; pursues an important goal which can be justified in a free and democratic society; and pursues that goal in a reasonable and proportionate manner. [5]" The simple duty of Compulsory Voting meets all these criteria which makes it justifiable and reasonable. What's the fine if someone doesn't vote in Australia? It's simply 20 Australian dollars [4]. That's it. And you'd be penalized only if you cannot provide a good reason for not voting. So it's a very lenient penalty and it's mainly meant as a wakeup call. I don't support heavier fines. Second, Con may be assuming that a large number of those who don't vote actually wanted to intentionally abstain from voting. But this is also untrue. CV has led to a significant increase in voter turnout (By more than 30 percentage points in Australia [2]), while the highest informal vote percentages in Australia were 6.34% in 1984 and 5.92% in 2013 [3]. What's important to note that CV led to an increase of at least 25% in turnout who wouldn't have voted otherwise in a voluntary system. That's about one quarter of eligible voters. Therefore CV is clearly a better system than voluntary voting. Finally, I argue that the protest vote for those who want to abstain from voting under CV is more superior that under a voluntary voting system. When people don't vote in a voluntary system, it's unclear how much was the protest vote. Are people not voting because they are protesting, or because they are lazy? It doesn't send the message to the politicians that protesters want to send. In Australia, you can easily see that roughly around 5.92% chose to abstain. But in the US, it's unsure how many of the 63.6% who didn't vote in 2014 elections actually chose to abstain. In summary, I showed that: 1. CV doesn't infringe on the right of citizens to abstain 2. CV is legally and constitutionally justified 3. CV better demonstrates the protest vote R2: The Apathetic Vote This contention is hardly any different than the previous one. Before I rebut this argument, I just wanted to remind my opponent that this debate doesn't only concern the US. Also, just because someone doesn't associate with the Democratic or Republican party, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to vote in an election. In any case, I agree with Con that some people are not interested in the political process. Con then argues that "In order for a democracy to truly be democratic, it should be able to account for these people and allow them to express their voices by not voting for anyone." What Con is actually arguing for is the right for apathetic people to abstain from voting. Essentially, this is the same argument as the first contention. As I've explained earlier, apathetic voters can still maintain their rights not to vote under a Compulsory Voting system. So CV still allows them to express their voice by not voting for anyone. There is no unique benefit to voluntary voting, except to reward procrastination. Also, I've shown in my opening case that voting helps educate people and engages them in the political process. While I agree that some will remain apathetic, others may become more interested which makes CV more beneficial. R3: Rational Voters Con argues that "Successful theoretical models of democracy utilize the concept of the "rational voter", assuming that the voting population is made of well-informed & educated people who are committed to choosing the leader they believe will best govern the country". This is a bare assertion. Con didn't provide any sources to suggest that this is the case. Am I supposed to simply agree? In fact, Con is wrong. Democracy is about representing all the people [6]. It doesn't matter if the voters are more smart or not, educated or not, well-informed or not, literate or not. In India where about a quarter are illiterate, people were asked to "identify their choices by party symbols such as a hand, lotus, or elephant" [7]. Almost in every democratic country, there is support for assisted voting [8]. Ace Project writes that "access to opportunities to vote is a guiding principle for voting operations, and a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)." It also cites "the United Nations Human Rights Committee's General Comment on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 25, which mentions the steps that electoral administrators should take to allow everyone to exercise their right to vote" [8]. In summary, education or rationality is not a requirement for eligibility to vote. Also, Con assumes that those who vote are rational. This is not necessarily the case. A poll showed that many people are misinformed about the issues. James Agresti writes "poll provides evidence that voters are often ill-informed and may be casting their ballots based upon misconceptions" [9]. And finally, if democracy is best achieved by an increase of "rational voters", then there might be a case to allow only those with relatively good IQ's, educated and literate citizens to vote. But this is not an argument against a CV system. So in summary, I've demonstrated that: 1. Rationality is not a requirement for voting 2. Democracy is about representing all the people including the uneducated and the illiterate 3. If rationality is a requirement for voting, then maybe there's a case to only allow those who are intelligent and educated. But it's not an argument against CV. Counter Plan I thank my opponent for the Counter Plan. I think that election day should be a national holiday too or on a weekend. What Con essentially proved that Voter Turnout is very important for a democracy, and that's why he recommends reducing obstacles to help increase voter turnout. But what Con failed to show is how much of an increase in voter turnout will this yield. Will it increase the voter turnout to numbers close to those that a CV system yields? He doesn't provide any evidence. In fact Japan and France which hold holidays on Sundays [10], had voter turnouts of just 52.66% [11] and 55.4% [12] respectively. These are terrible numbers! Therefore, while I appreciate the proposal, there is no evidence that the proposal would yield the returns that my opponent is hoping for. The benefits from implementing CV are much greater and more evident. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.aec.gov.au... [2] Round 2 – Pro's case [3] http://electionwatch.edu.au... [4] http://reviewcanada.ca... [5] http://www.justice.gc.ca... [6] http://www.lawanddemocracy.org... [7] http://www.economist.com... [8] http://aceproject.org... [9] http://www.theblaze.com... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.idea.int... [12] http://www.idea.int... |
19 | 4ce3fccf-2019-04-18T16:32:51Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | America Should Legalize Gay marriage Since this is her first debate on DDO, I'd like to give her a warm welcome, and commend her on doing so well in her first debate. Best of luck to her in the voting. HappinessMy opponent claims that "the entire point of marriage is to allow two people to live together in a non-scandalous manner. " However, I feel that I have dealt with this idea. Clearly, having a list of people who love each other is a private matter, and is none of the government's business. Thus, there must be a public reason why the government recognizes relationships. I've argued that in the case of traditional marriage, this is due to its procreative nature. My opponent also asks: "Anyway, if you don't forbid them from living together as married couples do, what is the point of forbidding them from marriage? " However, I think I've also answered this question. We ought to forbid gays from marrying each other, since this would put gay marriage and traditional marriage on a legal par, and this should not be so. However, let's assume that gay marriage would make gays happy. Even if this is the case, this doesn't mean we should do it. There are lots of things that would make some people happy, which should not be legalized. Take child pornography for example. This would make lots of people happy, but it shouldn't be legalized in the first place. So my opponent's argument can only succeed if we assume that gay marriage should be legalized in the first place. However, this is circular reasoning. (1)Finally, my opponent compares gay marriage to slavery and women's suffrage. But I don't think she has understood what I'm saying. This is made clear by when she claims, "Now, they are discriminating against GLBT by saying straight people may marry, but different orientations may not. " But I certainly am not saying gays cannot marry. Just that they cannot marry each other. In fact, even two straight men cannot marry each other in my opinion. So this is not discrimination against their orientation. Moods, alcohol, etc. For the sake of debate, I'll admit that legalizing gay marriage would make people happier, less alcoholism, etc. However, let me put this into a formal argument to show you why I don't think it works. P1: Whatever makes people happier, decreases alcoholism, etc. should be legalized. P2: Gay marriage does this. C: Gay marriage should be legalized. Now the first premise is unfounded. Just because something may make people happier, decrease alcoholism, etc. does that mean it should automatically be legalized? Not necessarily. At least we haven't been given any reasons to believe this. Even if gay marriage does all these things, my arguments against it still stand, and would refute this argument. Gays having childrenMy opponent objects that gays can have children by egg/sperm donors, etc. However, I don't think this argument works. The reason is that the link to procreation is not inherent to the relationship in the way traditional marriage is. While gay marriage might (in certain circumstances) be procreative, this doesn't mean the relationship is inherently so. So while gay marriage might possibly satisfy the procreation argument, it wouldn't do this in all cases. And my opponent is arguing that gay marriage should be legalized in all cases. So, at best, my opponent has shown that some gay relationships should be recognized as a marriage. Building societyI am sorry for the confusing terminology. I shall clarify. When I say traditional marriage "builds society" I literally mean, it creates society. What is society other than the totality of people? Traditional marriage makes people. So traditional marriage, literally, makes society. ConclusionIn conclusion, it should be clear that gay marriage cannot, and will never, affect society in the way traditional marriage does. Traditional marriage is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Relationships of this sort are inherently directed towards creating people. Thus, it affecs society in a particular way. In fact, it doesn't just "affect" society, it makes society. On the other hand, there is nothing inherent to a gay relationship which makes society. While gay marriage may indirectly affect a society, this society already has been built by traditional marriage. So we can conclude in saying that gay marriage's affect on society is parasitic upon traditional marriage. Now it makes absolutely no sense to put the two on equal legal ground, since one is much more beneficial to society. It is similar to saying my "Right to text" is equally as fundamental as my right "To have a cell phone. "Since "legalizing gay marriage" means putting traditional marriage and gay marriage on equal legal standing, gay marriage should not be legalized. P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B. P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage. C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage. Thanks! (1) . http://www.nizkor.org... |
13 | 1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Electric cars can be expensive to own (the price of the batteries). They won"t go far without stopping to re-charge the battery. Except in London, there is almost nowhere you can go to charge them up. Most of the electricity in this country is made by burning coal, gas or oil, so this means that electric cars end up being as pollutants as the fossil burning cars. The batteries used to power electric cars are very heavy. This slows the cars. Battery costs will vary but may be several thousand pounds and they have to be replaced every 5 years. The batteries use lithium and other rare metals. Disposing of batteries causes real environment problems. In an accident it may be difficult to get you out of the car because of the dangers of electrocution. Chemicals spilled from the battery may also be dangerous. The average electric car available in the UK will reach 50-55 mph. this is lower than even a small 1.1L car. A kilogramme of petrol contains enough energy to propel a car about 15 miles. A kilo of fully-charged lithium-ion battery will drive your electric car 500 yards. And you only get about 100 miles to a fully-charged battery at best, compared with 1,000-plus miles from the most economical diesels. This leads to "range anxiety", or the fear you will be stranded miles away from a socket. The energy intensive manufacturing of EVs means that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries. In the UK, during 2012, electricity generation from coal-fired power stations actually increased to almost 40% of total production, as the price of gas soared, and gas-fired electricity generation was reduced. Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. This means that depending on the electricity produced based on coal, the impact of an electric car can vary. If the production of burning coal based electricity is really high, it means that the impact of an electric car can be even higher than a fuel powered car. |
13 | f4c49f83-2019-04-18T19:00:07Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear power is beneficial for society In each argument I plan to only post one point. Now to refute my opponents idea that hydro power combined with wind and solar could in theory power the US, I would first like to point our that that hydro power causes huge habitat destruction and involves the flooding of an area in order to build the dams necessary. The main problem with hydro power is simply that it requires water in order to build and usually involves damming up a river. However, in many states and in US and places all over the world, there are places where water is not abundant enough to be dammed up as opposed to being used. Now, in order to refute his second point that energy that is most easily found is the supposed "best" energy. Following my opponent's logic, then fossil fuels should be the best alternative because there is a large amount of it. I beg to differ. Furthermore, his point on how there has been "catastrophic" disasters in nuclear, there has not been a single casualty or even injury in all of the year's that the US has used nuclear reactors and nuclear energy. Now, I can nearly guarantee that my opponent will at some point bring up the Chernobyl incident as why nuclear energy is unsafe. However, one must understand that the Chernobyl nuclear plant had NO CONTAINMENT dome for some reason over the plant. Also, the plant was made using soviet style nuclear plants, which have improved tremendously in terms of safety. Nowadays, all of the plants in the US are build using the western style and no casualties have happened in the US as a result of a nuclear plant malfunction. Furthermore, my opponents point about how there is no chance of hydro, solar or wind of hurting citizens is rather unfounded. The following is a table obtained from . http://nextbigfuture.com... It is the deaths per TWh produced by each energy. Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) My opponent's point that nuclear technology can be stolen and turn into potential nuclear weapons is rather amusing. Every single country in the world that currently has nuclear bombs first made the bombs as a result of military use and AFTER that began to develop civilian use nuclear factories. N. Korea already has nuclear bomb but has never actually used the on another country, and as you claim, if a country is so dangerous then there is a very high chance they will use nuclear bombs. However, N. Korea has not currently done so. Finally, if the technology of nuclear is as easy to steal as you claim it is, why don't terrorists just steal the thousands of nuclear bombs that the US already has? Now, back to my second point. Nuclear power can actually produce enough power to replace fossil fuels. It is actually viable. If solar were to replace the power that nuclear is producing CURRENTLY, it would have to cover New Jersey. If wind were to replace the nuclear energy currently produced, it would have to cover West Virginia. Hydro power can only be made on a river or lake and thus has very limited areas where it can actually produce energy. Nuclear power plants can be built anywhere and the energy produced by a single nuclear atom is 10 million times that of a coal atom. France is currently the world leader in nuclear energy and it has never had any casualties as a result of nuclear power. France has also reduced its CO2 levels compared to other countries. Essentially, my second point is that nuclear power can actually replace fossil fuels at a low cost and can easily generate enough power to power the US. Hydro, wind, solar etc. do not. |
37 | 9efcef5a-2019-04-18T17:48:54Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phones in school that had nothing to do with a cell phone, you can just write your homework down. Dummy like a dummy |
20 | 3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00006-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Hello ladies, gentlemen, judges I am Forever 23 and I am on the behalf of the premise which is that we CAN NOT ban eggs, dairy and milk worldwide. So allow me to first refute my opponents claims and then rebuild on my own points. Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body. http://www.healthyeating.org... Cheese contains a host of nutrients like calcium, protein, phosphorus, zinc, vitamin A and vitamin B12. Calcium is one of the nutrients most likely to be lacking in the American diet. According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations. The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below. If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated. For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat""found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils""was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the "saturated fat is bad" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement. Even if saturated fat is less of a concern, calories still matter. To reduce calories, you can grate or sprinkle harder cheeses over your dishes or use small amounts of aromatic and sharp cheeses for their delicious cheese flavor. Many reduced-fat varieties of cheeses are also available. This 2014 article in the Food and Nutrition Magazine provides more information on the Charms and Challenges of Cheese. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that individuals ages 9 and older consume at least 3 servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day; children aged 4-8 years need 2-1/2 cups per day. One serving of cheese is one and one-half ounces of hard cheese, one-third cup for grated cheese and two ounces for processed cheese. Their second claim was that meat dairy and eggs productions are unhealthy for the environment. However, cars are too! Do you see a ban on cars? No. But to get more topical, lets go over on the unhealthy production of vegetables and different herbs. I am sure that you know that pesticides are used to grow vegetables and fruits. http://www.toxicsaction.org... When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she raised public awareness about the effects of pesticide use on our health and our environment. However, almost forty years after Carson drew attention to the health and environmental impacts of DDT, use of equally hazardous pesticides has only increased. And all the time there is more evidence surfacing that human exposure to pesticides is linked to health problems. For example, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study that found that exposure to pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit may double a child's risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that can cause inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children. Acute dangers - such as nerve, skin, and eye irritation and damage, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and systemic poisoning - can sometimes be dramatic, and even occasionally fatal. Chronic health effects may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides in the environment, or result from the pesticide residues which we ingest through our food and water. A July 2007 study conducted by researchers at the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Health Services, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found a sixfold increase in risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) for children of women who were exposed to organochlorine pesticides. Pesticides can cause many types of cancer in humans. Some of the most prevalent forms include leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, bone, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and liver cancers. In February 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a study that found that children who live in homes where their parents use pesticides are twice as likely to develop brain cancer versus those that live in residences in which no pesticides are used. Studies by the National Cancer Institute found that American farmers, who in most respects are healthier than the population at large, had startling incidences of leukemia, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and many other forms of cancer. However, the pro doesn't just want to starve the planet... I wonder why? So judges, you should really consider how illogical it would be to ban the production of all meat, dairy and eggs. Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals. However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms. Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO! Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible. Now, as promised in my last speech, I will point out the health factor of each category. Second up, we have dairy. http://www.healthyeating.org... "Milk and dairy foods are healthy foods and considered nutrient-rich because they serve as good sources of calcium and vitamin D as well as protein and other essential nutrients. They provide phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and vitamins A, B12, and riboflavin1. The calcium in milk, yogurt, and cheese is significant yet most people don't get enough calcium or vitamin D each day2. Getting the recommended three servings of dairy per day can help build bone mass, leading to improved bone health throughout the life cycle. To meet daily calcium requirements, most people should have two to three cups of milk or servings of dairy foods each day. There are many ways to ensure you are eating healthy and getting enough milk and milk products each day. Start with a healthy breakfast of cereal, milk and fruit or a yogurt parfait, include cheese in your lunch or afternoon snack and consider pudding or hot chocolate made with milk as an evening dessert. To learn more about the amounts of food to eat each day, use the Healthy Eating Planner. Some Key Benefits of Dairy Foods The calcium in milk is easily absorbed and used in the body, which is why milk and milk products are reliable as well as economical sources of calcium. A diet rich in protein and vitamin D contributes to bone health. Due to their high protein, vitamin D, and calcium content, dairy foods are a good choice for maintaining strong bones. A diet rich in fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy foods, with reduced saturated fat, is as effective as some medications in reducing blood pressure in people with increased blood pressure. It has also been shown to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes1. Cultured dairy products like yogurt contain probiotics which provide a wide array of health benefits. Probiotics in the diet can enhance the good bacteria in the gut, improve health and reduce the risk of certain diseases" I just want to have a closing statement about one particular very healthy example of dairy. Yogurt. http://www.webmd.com..., "First off, your body needs to have a healthy amount of 'good' bacteria in the digestive tract, and many yogurts are made using active, good bacteria. One of the words you"ll be hearing more of in relation to yogurt is 'probiotics.' Probiotic, which literally means 'for life,' refers to living organisms that can result in a health benefit when eaten in adequate amounts. Miguel Freitas, PhD, medical marketing manager for Dannon Co., says the benefits associated with probiotics are specific to certain strains of these "good" bacteria. Many provide their benefits by adjusting the microflora (the natural balance of organisms) in the intestines, or by acting directly on body functions, such as digestion or immune function. (Keep in mind that the only yogurts that contain probiotics are those that say "live and active cultures" on the label.)" Vote pro for health problems. However, if you don't want to loose your meats and dairies, vote con. A vote for con, is a vote for health. Thank you. |
36 | 933bdbc1-2019-04-18T11:31:43Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | serbia started th ewar serbia is very bad. this guy killed someone meaning serbia as a whole is bad. die die die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to use up all my characters;. DIE DIE DIE. The driver was bad but serbia was worse! DIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE. serbia badvDIE. DIE |
36 | edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is a sport For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I. |
45 | 86723691-2019-04-18T18:09:28Z-00007-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S. Hello, here is my challange that you have already agreed to.The resolution is above. However, here are some rules for the debate.Rules8,000 charcter limit3 days to post argumentFirst round will be for acceptance onlyI also wish semantics will not be used.DefinitionsAbortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. |
27 | af960ba5-2019-04-18T15:33:01Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Severe Gun Control. I. Controlling the uses for gun, will reduce gun related accidents. A nine year old fatally shot her instructer in the head with an Uzi gun. Which results in a innocent person killed, and a girl scarred for life. (Although I am assuming so). Clearly this means there has to be some gun control such as do not let a 9 year old shoot an Uzi? There have been other incidents such as a man in Florida, shot a person for having to be on the phone while being in a movie. Apprantly, a police officer who did this was not a criminal. He had a spotless reocord and he was being threatened. (Apprantly, being threatened means being thrown popcorn at). The trigger was fired and a life was taken away. http://www.usnews.com... http://www.newrepublic.com... Before I go any further, I would like to point out that this is NOT about BANNING guns. But RESTRICTING its uses. Therefore, my opponent cannot use the idea of banning guns for I am not in favor for that. (According to tittle at least). II. Moral point of view. Now, this part of my argument holds no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. Now, morally speaking, a person being attacked, is morally better than a person being dead. (Speaking from a moral point of view, not a personal). If a person was attacked, there are other forms of defense as well such as pepper spray. (Which I will go deeper into my argument later). Some forms of weapons, do not kill and thus making them morally superior. If another person had a gun, then it would turn into a gun fight, resluting in more deaths if in public. Again, this part of my argument were mostly assumptions so I will not go into it any deeper. III. Other forms of defense. it does not mean that if you do not have a gun, and someone breaks into your house, your done for. There are other forms of defense such as 1. Security system 2. Pepper spray 3. Taser guns (Hopefully we are talking about firearms) 4. Baton 5. Tactical pen 6. Having a phone nearby IV. Increase age of gun uses. This is a form of gun control---increasing age. As I stated beofore, a nine year old had shot an insutrctor in the head. Gun ages vary from different ranges. In 30 states, a child or minor can own a rifle or shotgun. Which is one of the reasons why there should be some form of gun control. . .Increase the age so perhaps child related accidents do not occur. I would like to have my opponent elaborate on "severe". In following rounds, hopefully, my opponent agrees it will be rebuttals. |
7 | d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | ex felons should be able to vote i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country. |
45 | 1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00004-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. In today's society, a penny has become more than a simple coin used to commemorate the great president Abraham Lincoln, it is now a coin of both sentimental value and economic value. This debate will open your eyes to the new and exciting world of the penny. .. Sentimental Value: When looking into the issue of sentimental value, we find that it is one of major concern to the American citizen. The best way to understand the value of the cent towards the American population, is to look at the penny or rather cent's history. BACKGROUND: "When the United States Mint was created in 1792, one of the first coins it made the following year was the one-cent coin, and it looked very different from the modern version. � The image on the first cent was of a lady with flowing hair, who symbolized liberty. � The coin was larger and made of pure copper, while today's smaller cent is made of copper and zinc. In 1857, Congress authorized the United States Mint to strike the cent with 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel. � The "shape and size" would be determined by the United States Mint Director, with the approval of the Treasury Secretary. � The new cents showed a flying eagle on the front and a wreath on the back. � The act of February 21, 1857, also mandated that people could no longer use coins from other countries, a practice that had been necessary because of a lack of domestic coinage. � However, people could bring their foreign coins to the United States Mint, where they could be exchanged for U. S. silver coins and the new cents. From 1909 to 1958, the Lincoln obverse was paired with a reverse that featured a wheat design in which two sheaves of wheat flanked the words�ONE CENT�and�UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. � It is commonly known as the "wheat penny. " From 1959 to 2008, the reverse featured an image of the Lincoln Memorial designed by Frank Gasparro. � It commemorated the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. In 2009, the United States Mint issued four different one-cent coins in recognition of the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the first issuance of the Lincoln cent. � The themes for the reverse designs represent the four major aspects of President Lincoln's life: birth and early childhood in Kentucky (1809-1816) formative years in Indiana (1816-1830) professional Life in Illinois (1830-1861) presidency in Washington, DC (1861-1865)" {1} With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. On to statistics: Results of the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), show that: * 69% of Americans favor keeping the penny in circulation, which is virtually identical to what Americans reported (71%) to ORC in 2001; * 64% of respondents oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system; and * 70% expressed concern that if the government implements rounding schemes for cash purchases, merchants might take the opportunity to raise prices rather than lose pennies when rounding down, with minority Americans expressing most concern. {2} A personal survey interviewing 50 of my school mates showed these results: 38--->Wanted to keep the penny 10---> Didn't care 2-----> Wanted the penny gone. We must also take in consideration that many charities use the penny to collect huge amount of donation. Take the JC PENNY Penny drive, the penny to many is far easier to donate than coins with a higher face value. Abolishing the penny will greatly affect these charity organizations as the are now unable to collect as much money as they previously did with the existence of the penny. "Some charities use penny drives to raise money. Children in New York City collected more than 65 million pennies last year for a total of $655,508.54, according to organizer Common Cents. "It is a very powerful symbol of the potential we have to turn our wasteful society into a caring and recycling and reciprocal society," Common Cents founder Teddy Gross says. " {3} Both the statistic and the survey above shows that the penny is worth a lot when it comes to the American population. The American citizen not only see the sentimental worth of a penny, they also recognizes its. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Economic worth. My opponent makes a valuable point in stating that the penny is worth far more than its face value, however we must also take in consideration that the penny is also a major part of the economic circle. If the penny was abolished, every American goods as well as imported goods will have to be rinses to the nearest nickel. This might not seen like a lot, but to the lower class which makes up approximately 15.5% of the American population. "And at least one economist says eliminating the penny would hurt the poor. When prices are rounded, most of the amounts will be rounded up, not down, argues Pennsylvania State University economics professor Ray Lombra, who has testified before Congress in support of the penny. For those who have little money, those pennies will add up. "Certainly the working poor — many of them still do not have checking accounts, credit cards — they are conducting their transactions in cash. So they are the ones who are going to bear most of the burden," Lombra says. " {3} We must also look into the fact that the nickel cost far more than the current penny. The nickel cost $7.55 approximately $2.55 over its face value. If the penny was to be eliminated, there would be an increase in the manufacturing of nickels which in turn would cost the united states more money than both the current penny and nickel production today. Following my opponents core reason to abolish the penny, we should also abolish the nickel as it cost more to produce than it is actually worth. SOURCES: {1}. http://www.usmint.gov... {2}. http://www.pennies.org... {3}. http://www.pennies.org... {4}. http://ohmygov.com... |
6 | 7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | We regret the emphasis on college education OK I think I've lost. This is my last gasp. Rebuttal) 1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not. 2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur. 3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers. 4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas. And that's about it. My thanks to whiteflame. |
33 | ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | The World Should Become Vegetarian People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals. |
26 | dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00000-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Why Publishing a Teacher"s Standardized Test Results Is a Very Bad Idea Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal "Race to the Top" program, isn"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you"ll discover that I was simultaneously "the best," "the worst," "real cool," and "hype," as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored "below basic" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed "the worst teacher in New York" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn"t have been further from the picture the "rankings" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what"s going on in your child"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens" education. If we work together " if you don"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children "sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything " which is something we"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions. http://www.alternet.org... |
49 | f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras "my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: "Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras." And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: "So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself." Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. "Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government." I did not. Here is exact quote. " The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair." "What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree." It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. "The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished." Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. "Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone." They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. "Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace." Which is still a group... thus my point stands. " It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong." FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. "My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case." I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. "1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system." It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as "lower racial discrimination". Whether or not their classification of what counts as "lower racial discrimination" is objectively correct, is unknown. "2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force." And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow. |
4 | fe50a233-2019-04-18T18:12:45Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment of Children Should be Illegal My opponent states, "I am arguing for the right of parents to cause pain to children." And if that is the case you're arguing, once again I say that you cannot simply argue for the smallest possible outcome (light, gentle spanking occasionally for only really bad children). The argument is 'should parents cause physical pain to their children.' Rebuttals In answer to my argument, my opponent says, "Why not shoot the very naughty kid? Because a less harmful action, such as a slap to the buttocks, would be sufficient to do the job." If that is the logical path to determining right from wrong, then the case is settled. Why not shoot the kid? Because a less harmful action (spanking) is sufficient. Why not spank the kid? Because a less harmful action (grounding) is sufficient. So don't shoot the kid, don't spank the kid, take the mildest form of punishment possible and the mildest form is not physical violence by any accounts. (I am not saying this is true. I am simply stating my opponent's reasoning lends to this conclusion.) My opponent says, A slap to the buttocks protects them in that it prevents them from getting themselves killed in the future, whilst a gunshot wound or knife cut, at best, puts them in more danger. I disagree. A spanking also has the potential of putting a child in danger by causing flesh tearing, bruising and physical pain. A knife wound slit across skin can have a similar effect without long-lasting consequences. As disciplinary measures they'll both get the same point across; don't do this or you'll be physically punished. And my opponent's assertion that a slap to the buttocks protects a child from death is unfounded. There are other methods of teaching a kid not to run into the street. My same argument is that a gunshot would also teach the child not to run into the street, but it isn't an appropriate method of communication. Also my opponent states that "It's because the punishment is corrective - meaning that children can learn from it - that we allow it to happen to them. Because you cannot engage them mentally or rationally, assuming they have not yet developed the capacity for this, the only available option is physically." A child can also learn from starvation, but that doesn't mean we should allow it to happen to them. And just because they can be reasoned with in one sense (not all senses) the only available option is not physical violence. I heartily contest this baseless assertion. I'd contend that one could use other forms of negative reinforcement. A stern voice, disapproving tone, timeouts, grounding, taking away toys, not allowing to have fun. Are all forms of punishment that are alternatives to physical violence. I agree that "It's important for parents to be allowed to use all corrective tools that do not harm the child." One could make this argument. But I am already saying that 'spanking' does harm the child by making them more aggressive (Shown in the study above) making the child prone to violence, emotionally debilitating the child and making them a harm to society. My opponent debates then that not ALL spanking is good (he's conceded that at least some spanking is bad) so he states that very light, minimal spanking on occasion won't cause these harms. I would agree. I'd also agree that (like I said before) occasionally forgetting to feed your child fruit with his meals doesn't cause everlasting damage, because it is a minor harm that can be forgiven. But it is a harm all the same and it is when that negligible behavior turns to negligence that you have child abuse. By making spanking illegal, (in the same way that negligence is illegal) one would make sure that a child isn't open to a scenario where a parent can abuse them or can spank them too often, or too hard or cause too much damage. (Light spanking even isn't a good model, because it still teaches the child violence.) I did understand his point about Sweden. And I pointed out that making 'spanking illegal' was not the reason those kids went to foster care. Parents disobeying the law was the reasons those kids went to foster care. They were not allowed to spank, but did it anyway for their own selfish reasons or simply out of a negative habit. That is the parent's fault, not the child's and not the legal system's. Saying, that they suffered less abuse one place than another, doesn't mean that the first part should be legalized. Take one of those kids in foster care for example. Let's say they move from home A to home B. In home A they were beaten on occasion. In home B they were sexually abused and beaten every day. Just because Home B was worse than Home A, doesn't mean home A should be considered 'good.' And my opponent is arguing once again about the effect of the legal system. If the punishment given is too severe, that is a problem in the courts. A parent can be nominally fined, warned, or put under house arrest for various offenses. A parent can be imprisoned for a night or two days. Repeat offenders can suffer more serious consequences. In the end, I am not writing legislation, I am simply saying that because in a single case-study the courts aren't effectively implementing the law, doesn't mean that the law should be thrown out altogether. Defense My opponent states, "Children thus recognise that certain actions are context, subject and person relative in terms of their morality" He also says that children have the mental ability to determine the difference between multiple scenarios. Only moments ago in his debate he was arguing that, "Because you cannot engage them mentally or rationally." Now he is attributing the reasoning skills of a much older person with that of a child, but then switching the case study when it suits his debate. I disagree with this tactic. Either the child is mentally capable and can be rational in understanding about their roles and therefore can be rational about punishment and being talked to or shown by examples, or else the child isn't. In either case one of my opponent's arguments comes up short. Either the child is rational and spanking shouldn't be allowed because you can reason with them. Or the child isn't rational, and so they don't differentiate between a parent and a child's role in hitting someone or driving. (I am not stating this as my view, only as a contradiction of my opponent's.) My opponent is wrong is saying I said light smacks were 'ok.' I said light smacks can be forgiven or don't have as harmful an effect. In the same way punching someone on the jaw or getting in a fight with a friend can be okay, and won't be prosecuted by law. Both cases these can even draw people closer together after altercation, but they are still considered illegal and should not become common practice. In this paragraph my opponent is once again supporting 'pain' as a corrective tool. Violence sometimes is used simply to cause pain without lasting injury. (Torture for instance.) Just because the intention is pain not injury, doesn't make the violent act any more acceptable. Thirdly, I agree with my opponent. All harsh corporal punishment should be banned. He says that if you water it down it should be allowed, I say just because something is lesser of a greater evil, doesn't make it good. (Add flour to cocaine and you have a less potent substance, but it is still cocaine.) I'd say allowing light corporal punishment allows for harsh corporal punishment. (Who is to determine which is which? Will some social worker stand in the house while the punishment is administered.) And in either case I still argue violence teaches violence and even if you only have very light smacking once in a while, it is still physical violence. (Could say, I only lightly slapped my sister on the wrist. I wasn't violent!) I agree with my opponent's final statement mostly. I disagree with his conclusion. I think spanking, of any degree or speed, is poor parenting and should be illegal--though not always prosecuted. |
19 | d9e8fa65-2019-04-18T18:56:08Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage I am Con gay marriage. I believe they should be allowed a civil union but not a marriage which is specifically in a church (house of god) because the bible does not condone homosexuality. |
7 | 9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00004-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote [Definitions] (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year (3) Retain: to keep in possession or use [Observations] (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". An ex-felon is somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, is somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy [Value/Value Criterion] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution [Rebuttal] Value: Equality I have 3 responses --> equality (of rights) is impossible during incarceration. If felons were to be equal (in rights), then there would be no punishment. For example, the government puts you in jail. Right there, the government automatically takes away your right to liberty, pursuit of hapiness, and countless other rights -->My opponent is dejustifying all forms of punishment. If incarceration is unjust in and of itself, than there is no way for society to punish criminals --> This creates a 'double standard' (3rd contention) VC: Democracy I have 2 responses --> Democracy, as a form of government, must exhibit the ability to protect society. My opponent then must prove how dejustifying all punishment would help protect society --> Maximization of Fairness better upholds justice. For a government to be just, it must exhibit fairness to its consitituents. However, a democracy is not always just, and a just government is not always a democracy [Contentions] (1) Enfranchising felons is directly proportional to the increase of democracy My opponent is saying that letting these parasites of society vote will have more democracy I have two responses --> you cannot have 'more democracy' --> you can have more people participate in democracy, say children, but this would not uphold my value and value criteria (1a) Felon Disenfranchisement hurts democratic values and rights I have 2 responses --> democratic values include protecting society by way of just punishment. I have already proven how I have met that burden. Let's also not forget how they became a felon: by committing a felony. A felony inherently hurts society, and therefore government --> he brings in race towards the end. This is not resolutional. Because the court of law deals with punishment, you are essentially saying that the court is racist and corrupt. Because the court is racist and corrupt, then any punishment given by the court is corrupt, thus dejustifying all forms of punishment (1b) Restoration of the right to vote enables rehabilitation and reintegration into (a) democratic society I have two responses --> If you agree with my opponents logic, then the opposite (disenfranchising) felons automatically destroys the opportunity to rehabilitate them. Yet, this is false. Many people can become a member of society without having the right to vote. Look no further than Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who was found guilty of a felony, yet he serves the best nation in the world --> Once a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by society, therefore, anything dealing with an ex-felon is not resolutional (In a democratic society, FELONS....) Cont 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights --> not necessarily. For example, the government revokes the right to bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to privacy, ect. --> Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by said society, therefore not resolutional and or pertaining to the resolution Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I negate the resolution |
12 | 8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00001-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | is birth control good or nah First, let"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates "normally." This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year. |
41 | 65e788a3-2019-04-18T17:22:21Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | National debt: We should not start paying it off right now As stated before, I will make my arguments as concise as possible to avoid a long-winded debate without detracting from the truth.I am not very good with computers so I didn't realize my DEBT/GDP ratio graphs in my previous post did not display large enough. Here is a link to them.US GDP/DEBT ratio graph: http://www.pixentral.com...Japan GDP/DEBT ratio graph: http://www.pixentral.com...The point I am illustrating in showing these graphs is that a GDP/DEBT ratio is not indicative of an unstable economy, Japan is the 3rd largest economy and surpassed the US in GDP/DEBT ratio back in 1997.OPPONENT SUMMARY#1. The nominal debt is rising - therefore it is an immediate problem#2. The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is a problem #3. Interest on debt is why the national debt it is an immediate problem#4. Interest rates are low now, but once interest rates will rise once our economy is back on track - becoming a financial problem#5. The long-run implications of debt with just making the minimum payments will results in more taxation and eventual economic sluggishness.#6. debt is determinal to economic growth - which is a problem#7. Our debt is unsustainable, is leading to higher inflation, and causes a "crowding out effect".My response to my opponents argumentsI will start with point #7 and work my way up to #1 - then present a quick conclusion:#7. Our debt is unsustainable, is leading to higher inflation, and causes a "crowding out effect".Let's take a look at the solid evidence first. Since Obama took office, the national debt rose by $6 trillion dollars [1].Surely this $6 trillion in spending would lead to out of control inflation and skyrocketing interest rates, then lead to a crowding out effect on the private market right? Not the case. Let's take a look at the facts on inflation first.Here is inflation over the last decade: Link to this picture: http://s14.postimg.org...Here is the the shockingly low interest rate: Link to this picture: http://s10.postimg.org...As you can see: Interest rates are lower than ever, and inflation - despite huge government spending - is not any higher or lower than at was with less government spending. The reason? Let's take a look back at the production possibilities curve: We are still at point "D" on the production possibilites curve. Our economy is still not at full potential. Huge government spending has had no effect on inflation or led to higher interest rates for this reason. Once our economy is back at full potential, that is the time to begin paying back the debt.# 6. Debt is determinal to economic growth - therefore it is a problemThere are a few reasons why this is not a problem. 1) we own debt in our own currency, our currency is the international currency, and we can print as much money as we like 2) the same way a business uses credit to buy its products is akin to the way we use expansionary government spending to lift the economy during bad times without negative consequences of inflation or rising interest rates - no crowding out effect. The solution is to pay back the debt during good economic times, the same way a that a business that begins to make large profit will start paying more back on its debt.#5. The long-run implications of debt with just making the minimum payments will results in more taxation and eventual economic sluggishness.The key word here is [u]long-run[/u]. In the short run, during an economic recession, it is necessary to use expansionary government spending to lift the economy out of crisis for the reasons I listed above. In the long-run, once our economy is lifted out of a recession, then it is necessary to begin paying more on our national debt. The same way a struggling business wouldn't begin to pay large amounts of its debt back until the business was more profitable.#4. Interest rates are low now, but once interest rates will rise once our economy is back on track - becoming a financial problemThe key word here is "[u]once our economy is back on track[/u]. The road to economic recovery or the process of even reaching "back on track" would much slower and painful if expansionary government spending wasn't helping the economy to reach it's full potential. The logical option is to pay more back on the debt we used to expand the economy during bad times.#3. Interest on debt is why the national debt it is an immediate problem.We own the debt in our own currency. We print more money - but no inflation follows. Then we pay the printed money as interest to other countries we owe it to. Effectively we are cancel out the interest problem when noticing this simple truth.#2. The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is a problem Japan currently holds over 200% of a DEBT/GDP ratio and is the worlds third largest economy. They surpassed us in 1997 in GDP/DEBT ratio.#1. The nominal debt is rising - therefore it is an immediate problemThe key words here are "immediate" and seeing an inherent danger in nominal debt rising. I am [u]not[/u] arguing that we do not pay back our debt at all - but rather when our economy is experiencing low unemployment and get out of recessionary times. We own debt in our own currency - the international currency of the world, we own the printing press, inflation is constant, and interest rates are at an all-time low. The unemployment rate is falling steadily as well, we are getting back on track. I don't see the immediate problem, and even more curious, is to take a look at what happens when we [u]don't[/] use expansionary spending. The worst economic crisis in American history comes to mind - The Great Depression.As a conclusion, I will offer you words from arguably, one of the greatest economists of our generation: Paul Krugman. He completely agrees we me that we should not make extra payments on national debt right now. He has some excellent videos on YouTube for the same reaons. Here he is: http://www.youtube.com...Here is a great article also by Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com...Paul Krugman's credentials : Nobel prize-winning professor of economics at Princeton University, specializing in international and Macroeconomics [2].[u]SOURCES[/u][1] http://www.cbsnews.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
49 | dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00005-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example. |
28 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
46 | f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00004-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Thanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro's argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether "the USFG should reject net neutrality." But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in "the concept of net neutrality". As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality – is not sufficient to reach the conclusion – the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro's argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define "content neutral", this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:"the Internet "decouples" the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC's programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all—even content created by a competing ISP." (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro's slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same "general criticism" I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro's argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I'll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government's will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro's reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the "site should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities". However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don't have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: "where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content."If Pro is willing to defend Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of "explicitly filter[ing] content" - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be "net beneficial". Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that "ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use" and "due to the enormous cost of doing so". But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that "a rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation", and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the "fast lane" and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn't immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed – as seen in this round – still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro's counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org... |
37 | 28b1a24d-2019-04-18T19:06:02Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity I greet my opponent and welcome him to this site warmheartedly! I look forward to a debate of high quality and interesting facts. Unfortunately, I have come online and have only five minutes to write my arguments, which would not be long, and I want to save them for the next round. I was unable to write arguments before now because I needed to fix some hardware issues, and the only way I could write was through a game console, which would waste a lot of my time. I apologize for this, and hope that we can continue debating successfully in the next rounds. |
14 | eed72a73-2019-04-18T13:02:15Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society. Pro stated:The opponent, at one point, declared that I was "ignoring the evidence [implying that homosexuality as not natural, in some cases]." I responded by pointing out that the opponent had not submitted evidence of any kind, thus showing that I could not have been ignoring anything. The opponent's response basically boils down to this: "Go do your own research."While I certainly have, it should be noted that the whenever a debater makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back up that claim. It is never the responsibility of his opponent to do research for him, nor is it ever the responsibility of the voters to do this research. If the opponent makes a claim, then says evidence supports it -- it is absolutely his obligation to produce this evidence. Failure to do that makes the argument essentially baseless. And seeing as the opponent (again) has failed to produce any evidence, his argument should be considered baseless.The opponent agrees that homosexuality is largely natural, and asks if we can "progress on from here". Absolutely. Voters, please note I have upheld at least the first part of the resolution. Con's Response: Pro's side has not disproved anything of homosexuality being an influence at all. It's not a claim and the pro's side knows it. Well aware of the research out there, but to fit the pro's views they cherry pick and remain very selective of the so called research they have done. Again, there is no debate that research has showed for what appears to be the fact that homosexuality has some natural root to it. That's why I said let's progress on because I don't see how it's debatable any further. Pro stated:Despite the opponent agreeing that homosexuality is natural, he wishes to continue debating the point. This is fine. I claimed that, since homosexuality is an animal behavior, it makes sense to look at all animals when determining if it is natural. The opponent's response argues that I've presented no logic as to "why this is the procedure", despite the fact that the very thing he quoted me on contained the logic behind it. When we are investigating a phenomenon of any sort, we look at the phenomenon over all areas it affects. In other words, if we are studying how gravity works, we do not limit our investigation to Paris or Beijing. Rather, we look at as many areas where gravity exists as we can, so as to better understand its nature. If we were to ignore some areas, we might miss a fundamental portion of what makes gravity "gravity". Con's Response : So it took this amount of time for Pro to give some explanation of this line of reasoning. Finally we are getting somewhere. Still does not change anything about natures that differ. Now the question is, how do you tie one to the other? How do we see what's natural for one thing and not for another? See all that has to be explained. It has not been by the pro side, at least not substantially. Pro stated: Similarly, when we look at the phenomenon of "homosexuality", we should look at the phenomenon in all areas it affects. Since it is a behavior, we should look at the group of all things that exhibit this behavior. As I proved (with evidence) in Round 2, homosexuality is found in many animals, thus meaning that homosexuality is not limited to humans. By only looking at homosexuality in humans, we are limiting the scope of our investigation further than the actual bounds of the phenomenon. Con's Response: So what? What does an "animal"act have to do with a person? Is this monkey see, monkey do? That's good that you don't limit the scope. Always look at things in other perspectives, like from the con's side. But again, the correlation is not strong here. Between two different species it was already demonstrated how we meaning persons do what "animals" don't and vice versa. The foundation is just not verified here . Maybe it just what the pro side believes so maybe it can't be more detailed than that. It would be all different if we were just analyzing persons because there is a stark correlation there. Pro stated:This is bad for the reasons mentioned in the gravity example, so it is best that we indeed extend our investigation of homosexuality to animals as well. And as I've proven, the fact that animals exhibit this behavior with such frequency indicates that it is a natural occurence, since it cannot be argued that man somehow forced 10% of animal species to begin exhibiting homosexual behavior. Con's Response: Who said anything of forcing? It's clear by now we know what natural is. However it becomes a repetitive analysis in this debate of something doing what's in it's nature. What about insects? Is there behavior that has been analyzed there? What about protozoans and microscopic organisms? You might as well look at all. Has there been results from these other organisms to tell us why or about the things we do? Pro Stated:And I realize that humans differ from non-human animals. This does not mean that we cannot make a comparison, given a commonality. It is also scientifically accurate to say that all people differ from one another; you and I are definitively different and unique. That does not mean that, when looking at the height of the average person, you should not include all people in your calculations. Con's Response: Understandable, just that the connection between the two or more subjects is unclear.Pro stated:The opponent references this argument, but continues to argue against the previous point. As such, he has failed to rebut the "culture" argument and it should be flowed to me. Again, the argument is this: Nearly every culture documented across all time has had homosexuality present to a lesser or greater extent. This implies that homosexuality is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurrence Con's Response:Not at all proof, but so what? What's the point. All that's being asserted here is pre-suppositional views of what it looks like or maybe abducted reasoning. Pro Stated:The opponent hasn't brought up anything new here. He is still arguing that "in an imaginary world in which everyone is homosexual, homosexuality would harm society". Con's Response:Pro wants it to be imaginary due to it not looking good for pro's position which was admitted in regards to that population factor. Imaginary hints or is associated with something false. But when population and reproduction was mentioned, it's very real that heterosexuality sustains us. That's very real and very factual indeed. See we are not just supposing , theorizing , hypothesizing , we are looking at things in full picture. In principle , in full value , in full or unlimited scope like Pro said. Deducting, deducing, concluding based from facts what happens as a thing accumulates. Just like the cigarette analogy, Pro sees the small picture but , it's near impossible to get the eyes open wide enough to see the big picture. Now of course as of now heterosexual behavior dominates the planet so that the latter doesn't occur. But that's no kudos to homosexuality because that's not sustaining us. Those points go to appropriate heterosexual behavior. So either way it's because of correct sexuality (heterosexuality) that flourishes persons to keep this so called "imaginary world" around which is a plus. Also it's shown what would happen when heterosexuality is not kept in the forefront. So what happens is , the facts get marginalized, they are called fictitious , imaginary to evade what's clearly true and irrefutable. It's admitted and agreed from both sides through these rounds that mankind will not thrive off of non-heterosexuality/surrogacy/insemination etc, all in one classification . Then the pro's side changes their view of what's seen as a problem to be a solution. Cutting down the population, reducing, cutting off lives even if it includes me and you is a solution to a problem. Pro Stated: Not only does this analysis exist outside of the society we live in; I've already addressed this edge case. Even if everyone was homosexual, society would not be harmed. (Modern Medicine and Fertilization Argument)Given that no amount of homosexuality is harmful to society for the medical reasons above, it cannot be said that a "small amount of homosexuality" is like "a small amount of cancer", or that it represents a small harm that is just not yet apparent due to its small size. Con's Response: Long story short, heterosexuality is the key to human life survival. Again please, be honest, when something is harmful , is it harmful with no respect to the amount? Is cancer cancer with no respect to the amount of cancerous cells? Are you sure your not just saying what we can live with? Is it really not bad or damaging or are we saying we can live with a minimum or small amount of damage? See that's the point logically. We have to realize what the situation truly is for what it is. We are just deciding to tolerate minimal damage over great damage to our health or whatever the case is. But the confusion comes in when we start saying minimal damage is not damage at all. Not apparent has nothing do with it actually existing or not. We're just talking about what we can see or be aware of when something is apparent or not. But if the doctor says this is only curable at the early stages which is not apparent but detected by thorough examination and medical technology , I hope we take action. See this is just another excuse to try and justify something that has insignificant harm. See how this works in principle?That's why it was pointed out early on, that due to the very definition of harm itself, it's contradicting when your argument or feelings are not to support harm in one degree but tolerate it in another. If harm means bad at any rate , how is it acceptable and satisfactory at all? It's what your willing to tolerate and be complacent with.So it's Pro as well as many others are trying to convince indirectly that a subject can very well be no good but accept it with little agony. |
30 | ff448f9e-2019-04-18T14:42:02Z-00007-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Consenting adults have the right to get married. I will take the affirmative position, and my opponent will take the antiaffirmative position. Topics that relate to this debate are: Same sex marriage, interracial marriage, and the right of disabled people to get married. |
15 | b8d48ad7-2019-04-18T18:50:39Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing To address the concerns of my opponent, I have never stated that animal testing is 100 percent conclusive. In relation to human trials, animals simply provide the next best model. Physiological differences between humans and animals do create a minor disparity between results; however, animal testing delays human trials in an attempt to make the drug as safe as possible before it is administered to human patients. Once a drug has been determined to be both safe and effective for animals, it is then generally tested on a small group of people before being approved for mass distribution. This human testing is performed in compliance with many laws which ensure to protect the safety of human subjects and require the drug to be tested extensively prior to these trials to ensure its safety. In-vitro testing is one method of determining a drug's reliability but is likewise inconclusive in determining safety of a drug. Animal testing is required for FDA approval of the drug to be tested on human patients. In the case of Vioxx, which was removed from the US market in 2004, animal testing and human testing were likewise performed. The drug which was supposed to act as an anti-inflammatory had cardiovascular side effects in humans which did not appear in animal testing. Vioxx was first tested in animals and showed no evidence of cardiovascular failure. According to the VP of Clinical Research for Merck (the company who tested this drug) non-of the human trials confirmed that the drug prevented blood clotting so the company relied on animal studies in order to claim these results. The company was accused of falsifying data and using unreliable sources in order to get approval by the FDA. Generally, once human trials of the drug begin, these results become the most prominent and are relied upon to determine the drug's ultimate safety. Prior animal testing is performed only to ensure the drug as much as possible before commencing human trials. The Vioxx trials performed on green-monkeys were performed after human clinical trials found an increase in cardiovascular effects for patients taking the drug. It must also be noted, animal trials are more effective for certain types of modeling (ie. antibiotic modeling vs. systems modeling –particularly of the CNS but in this case of the cardiovascular system). Vioxx failed to recognize this in their studies of the cardiovascular system and used animal trials above human trials when relaying their results, an act that was highly controversial and seen by the scientific community as unethical. The study of genetics envelops many types of research. The research of homology and plasticity between genetic material of differing species is used to determine the similarity between species on different traits. One result of this type of experimentation is to determine which animal species are most closely related to humans physiology and genetically dependent on the area of research. (Mice share 99% homology of their genes with humans making them useful in studies of human diseases.) This helps determine which animal would more accurately model a human response. Deliberately produced genetic diseases in animals will have pathologies like those of human diseases and finding cures in animals helps to finding similar cures for humans (Pines, Maya, ed. "Blazing the Genetic Trail." Bethesda, MD: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 1991). In-vitro research can be performed using human DNA just as effectively as by using animal DNA. Recombination practices as well as insertion or deletion practice however, cannot be replicated in humans. These practices are integral for the study of progression of disease and effects on physiology as well as drug effects. In regards to protein homology, protein interaction is integral in many diseases and disorders. Treating these ailments is performed through methods of integration of proteins, mutation of proteins (particularly growth factors), interaction of proteins with antibiotics or other drugs, etc… Genetic studies of animals have led to advances in research on and production of drugs for obesity, heart disease, and diabetes just to name a few. Insulin for diabetes patients is the result of research with dogs, leprosy vaccines is from armadillos, treatments for Huntington's disease and polio first used research performed on primates. Vaccines such as the leukemia vaccine were also developed primarily as the result of animal testing. This research continues because of the numerous safe and effective drugs and vaccines which are developed through animal testing. Currently many new projects are taking place including research for a new TB vaccine (since TB strains are subject to resistance factors). As for cancer, clearly there has not been a "cure all" cancer drug developed from animal research. What has been developed however, are many drugs and methods for treatment of cancer. While in-vitro studies may initially show correlation between drugs and their effects on cancer, these results are not conclusive without clinical trials. Clinical trials must be performed on animals prior to trials on humans to ensure the safety of drugs. Numerous treatments are developed and tested and are never passed to human trials because they do not first pass animal trials. I propose that it is more beneficial to humans to allow these treatments to be tested on animals before they are tested on humans, simply for more evidence of their safety. As shown with Vioxx nothing is ever 100 percent certain after animal trials, but it must be recognized that animal testing provides more evidence towards the safety of these drugs. In conclusion, after analysis of the variant types of animal testing and the results it has produced and continues to produce, I suggest that the practice of performing research on animals should continue. Animal testing has been directly linked to improvements in human medicine through understanding of genetics, development of vaccines and other drugs, and further research into surgical procedures and cures for diseases. I feel that research performed on animals, is justifiable due to these contributions. |
24 | f1166b5e-2019-04-18T18:31:24Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. Ford may help dissipate any confusion the judges may have experienced reading Con's argument: "It is well enough that people of the nation don't understand the monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. " Henry Ford Austrian School: My opponent's definition is valid. He reiterates the sound policies of Austrian Economics which Ron Paul holds. He cites "property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement" as the core issues. Yes, this is the proper role of government. The reason why Austrians are "strongly opposed to government intervention in business affairs" is because the government stifles economic growth, causes bubbles and speculation from central bank monetary policy, and causes deadweight loss through unnecessary government bureaucracies and programs. [1] Keynesian School: Keynesian economics CAUSES the business cycle. By artificially raising or lowering the interest rates (which should be set by the market) the Federal Reserve plays a huge role in generating booms and busts. Also, price controls in the area of wages makes employment below the minimum wage illegal; thus, fostering unemployment and the deadweight loss of unemployment benefits that follows while decreasing the total amount of goods and wealth for all. Keynesian monetary policy make relatively steady economic growth littered with periods of artifically booms and disasterous market corrections that are further delayed by economic "stimulus" until the economy and national debt gets increasingly worse. [3] Warfarism: a federal government desire to consistently go to war and prepare for war. The word was popularized by Libertarian economist Ludwig Von Mises, anti-war movements, and Ron Paul in his book Liberty Defined, but you can substitute "militarism," if you like. The Keynesian idea behind it is that spending on war generate genuine economic growth, which of course it doesn't. Under Barack Obama the military currently spends an exorbitant amount of money maintaining unnecessary forces tat weaken our national defense. What weakens our defense even more is the fact that this spending is bankrupting the country. . http://1.bp.blogspot.com... RC1: The US currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. The threats that I mentioned still exist. The disincentives to small business growth and entrenchment still exist. My opponent mentioned Obama's Affordable Care Act. This Act will do to medicine what socialism has done to medicine in other countries: lower quality, lower efficiency, increase costs, and increase waiting times. The only type of surgery that decreased in cost in the past decade was plastic surgery, because of the lack of government intervention. A $20,000 heart surgery in the United States costs near $10,000 in Singapore, because Singapore has more economic freedom. So what Obama and Congress are doing is taking a bad system and making it unimaginably worse. Obama hasn't made the US more conducive to small business growth; he has however, increased the power of big business. [4] [5] RC2: "Obama saved the Auto Industry. " I'm confident that most of the people reading this debate can take this laughable claim for what it is: a joke. The status quo of Washington economic policy is to make an environment increasingly hostile to business, shoot up the economy with cheap money that fuels speculation, then when there are dire consequences to these irresponsible actions, they bail out specific companies; thus, creating a moral hazard, discouraging small business, subsidizing big business, and making the average American pay for it through direct taxation or indirect taxation i. e. printing money that devalues the currency while the debt continues to accumulate. This is a "success" for Washington Keynesians. The role of government is not to pick winners or losers, but to allow the free market to decide which goods to produce. If a company cannot figure out how to survive, you should allow it to die so that another that can do the job better can replace it. You don't reward terrible managing through bailout's with other people's money. That's the heighth of irresponsibility. [10] RC3: "Stimulus" This is a very persistent economic fallacy. The thought that cheap money sent to commercial and investment banks at practically a zero rate of interest stimulating economic growth is absurd. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, they have no real resources, and all they can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. RC4: Barack Obama supported the Wall Street Bailouts. The CPA is another government bureaucracy which has the goal of monitoring activity caused by another government bureaucracy. This is the epitome of inefficiency. The bill doesn't get to the root cause of the financial crisis: reckless monetary policy from the federal reserve. The law does not end "Too big to fail. " The firms that benefitted from the bailouts will be ensured continued industry dominance with the help of government. Note here that there has never been a monopoly in the United States without government intervention. More regulations in the financial sector means higher costs for smaller financial services firms; thus, decreasing competition, and allowing the dominance of a select few financial services firms in the industry. Ron Paul objected to the bailouts every step of the way. [6] [10] RC5: Obama did not put the US back on a recovery any more than the socialist policies of Bush put the US on a recovery after the recession in his first term. Washington doesn't understand that the stimulus is the problem. It just delays the recession (in the case of Bush until 2008-2010) until a later date in which the severity is increased, because of the unhealthy economic woes produced by reckless monetary policy. Despite how severe this recession was, the next will be far worse unless we let the free market correct itself and do away with a nation-destroying federal reserve that is bankrupting not only our country, but central banking has destroyed countries throughout history throughout the world [see Greece and Portugal]. Ron Paul writes extensively on the topic with great profundity in his book End the Fed. The federal reserve system inflates the money supply, decreasing its value and stimulating economic destruction. [7] [8] RC6: The American Jobs Act is an example of what is known as the most persistent economic fallacy of all time. This fallacy is that if the government pays people to work or do nothing, they'll spend that money, hence growth. That is false; the people aren't productively employed, because taxpayers are financing it. The incentive is to work less while being employed. It is not efficient use of resources; thus, there is deadweight loss, and taxpayer funding for it is irresponsible. Obama would have raised the debt past his triple if it was passed. [9] [1] www. econlib. org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics. html [2] www. econlib. org/library/Enc/MonetaryPolicy. html [3] www. econlib. org/library/Enc/BusinessCycles. html [4] www. cnbc. com/id/30727913/The_World_s_Highest_Corporate_Tax_Rates_2010? slide=10 [5] www. lewrockwell. com/schiff/schiff64.1. html [6] finance. yahoo. com/tech-ticker/peter-schiff's-3-reasons-why-financial-reform-will-fail-523726. html? tickers=xlf,faz,fnm,FRE,JPM,BAC,c [7] hmscoop. com/ [8] www. realclearmarkets. com/articles/2011/11/11/the_fallacy_of_persistent_credit_creation_99362. html [9] blog. heritage. org/2009/08/28/obama's-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/[10] www. fee. org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L15 |
8 | a21797ac-2019-04-18T17:09:29Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | abortion should be legal in every state I will take that as a concession. My adversary claims that abortion should not be legal as we can see by the topic. She says tt should be illegal. She then changes the resolution so that abortion should support cases where it could cause danger to someone. She also drops my self defense argument. Therefore extend all resolutions because she conceded that should should be legal in some circumstances and because of the remaining points that were dropped. |
30 | 9e1a911-2019-04-18T18:17:47Z-00005-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional Definitions and premises may be challenged or agreed upon. Arguments should be in regard to morals as well as plausibility. Resolution- Increased Gun Control is Unconstitutional Definitions: Handgun- firearm designed to have the potential to be held and operated by one hand although not necessarily used that way. Unconstitutional- not in accordance with an applicable constitution of a nation. Constitution- The document referred to as the supreme law of the land adopted on September 17, 1787 at the U. S Constitutional Convention. Premises (Open to Challenge) 1) Guns are not inherently evil and fulfill functions that have been crucial and useful to human society. 2) The right to bear arms is stated explicitly in the US Constitution under the fundamental Bill of Rights |
20 | 6c858ad6-2019-04-18T16:05:53Z-00006-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood I thank Aburk for agreeing to debate this with me. I have chosen him because he, so far, is the challenger with the highest number of debates won and the lowest number of debates lost. I do enjoy a good challenge. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate that is close to my heart. Cadbury Creme Eggs are the most beautiful little pieces of heaven that exist on earth. Or at least I think so. Format (me/my opponent): 1st round- Rules/acceptance 2nd round- Main arguments/arguments and rebuttals 3rd round- Rebuttals for both 4th round- Summary arguments for both |
33 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 rē 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 |
27 | e0c0b7ca-2019-04-18T12:20:15Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun control I am up to this, and am glad to meet another new member. It'll be a bit of a difficult task for me, seeing as I am pro-gun control, but I am still willing to challenge myself to see from the other side of the debate. Thank you for inviting me to debate this with you! |
40 | 351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States Thank you, Roy, for your response. 1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement My opponent claims that "citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost." I disagree. There is definitely a point at which delivering more justice to a criminal costs more than it helps; I don't even see how killing helps. We could easily spend twice as much money on our police force, reducing the number of criminals who get away with their crimes slightly, but this would result in numerous policemen doing nothing, a waste. The law of diminishing returns applies to justice. 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny My opponent's statistic regarding this point seems irrelevant; the 6% applied to the Innocence Project, but depending on how many cases they investigated, 6% may be a drop in the bucket or a large portion of all death penalty cases. Life without parole, while requiring scrutiny, would not require as much scrutiny as a death penalty case, in which any mistakes are permanent. While we may see numerous appeals, remember that inmates on death row have about ten years to stall; laws could also be passed to greatly restrict the number of appeals an inmate may have. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution My opponent neglects to give us a percentage of the costs involved in challenging the death penalty, so we cannot conclude much from this point. I can't see a significant number of courts allowing the FDA argument to be debated. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The "main costs," as my opponent calls them, are actually for killing the inmates, not for housing them. "Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age" [4]. My opponent provides data of prison killings, but I have already explained how his data is outdated through technological advancements in security. We must remember that with technology come both more effective and cheaper methods of containing inmates. The death penalty will supposedly save the costs of imprisonment, but this cost must still be paid on death row, for the ten years in which the convict is most likely to try and space; killing the convicts is also, as I quoted, extremely expensive. Ohio may be killing off more inmates, but my opponent's source says nothing of the actual cost to Ohio. Sure, they build fewer prisons, but they still spend much on the executions themselves. All in all, the death penalty replaces the cost of prisons with the cost of execution, usually with a great deal of inefficiency, especially when the citizens of the state don't actually support the use of a death penalty. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal My opponent appeals to the democratic aspect of the court system, in which the jury gets to decide who gets the death penalty and who does not. However, this process is plagued with terrible errors, such as racial and gender bias, poor court-appointed attorneys, and the jurors' general incomprehension of the death penalty, to the point of arbitrariness [5]. Many jurors don't even understand the process of the death penalty. Certain requirements in choosing the jury for a death penalty case force an overrepresentation of jurors in support of the death penalty, skewing the court's decision away from the true public opinion. If anti-death penalty people were allowed on the jury, we'd see much fewer death penalty cases compared to the dismal numbers we already see. How much justice is it for people to be sentenced to death on an almost random basis often decided based on irrelevant information about the defense? Regarding a comparison between life and death, a life sentence will force more contemplation on behalf of the killer to thing about the wrongs that he committed. The death penalty merely ends their life immediately, with no reflection on the crimes. While death is more barbaric, it does not deliver true justice. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives 17 people are already given as having been sentenced to death while innocent. If a person can be put on death row innocent, then a person can be executed innocent. If the death penalty is put into execution more often (no pun intended), then a large portion of the 17 known (likely more) innocents would indeed be killed. A large enough sample of killings will produce the death of an innocent. My opponent cites four different cases of prison/escapee kills, but note that these were in minimum and normal security prisons. They wouldn't have been sentenced to a death penalty regardless of the legality. Maximum security will not allow escapes so easily. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics I do indeed have a case of a man who was sentenced to death only to be discovered innocent. Had the policemen been slightly more thorough in their framing, we would have an execution. There are actually many cases of innocent execution, the top ten listed here [6]. While some are due to limited forensics, others are due to forensic carelessness that isn't fixed with technology, and others still are due to judicial bias and police apathy. Forensics only has a small part to play in correcting death sentences. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Again, I do not see whatever death prevention my opponent claims being worth spending millions of extra taxpayer's dollars. In Texas, for example, it has cost $2.3 million to execute someone instead of imprisoning them for life, not counting the cost of death row [7]. One out of every 200 prisoners manage to escape [8], with the probability even lower for higher security. If we assume that an escapee manages to kill one person before being caught, we have spent about $250 million to save a life. The money would easily be put to better use as hospital subsidies, where a life can be saved for well less than $250 million. This doesn't even factor in wrongful deaths, which may be more than one in every two hundred. All other sub-contentions here are better argued in their other full contentions. 5+. Justice deters crime A culture can lower crime rates if its people follow strict moral guidelines. We obviously see cultures such as the ghetto culture producing a disproportionate number of criminals; the opposite can just as easily be true. The point about race is that there would be fewer racially motivated crimes in Japan, lowering the crime rate. The argument about an unaccustomed foreigner makes little sense, as China administers the death penalty, as do most Eastern countries. In any case, criminal policy cannot be determined by a single outlier example; the overall trend in the United States scientifically suggests no deterrence created by the death penalty at all [9]. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining I find it interesting that my opponent would allow murderers to escape the justice that he feels must be implemented even at great costs by simply pleading guilty. He provides no examples of killers pleading guilty because of the threat of death penalty that would not be persuaded by any other means. Murderers who think they will walk free will not plead guilty, while those who know that they left too much evidence will plead guilty; the ones who end up receiving the death penalty will likely be the ones who were framed by circumstance. That is most definitely not justice. 5. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 6. http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com... 7. http://texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com... 8. http://www.slate.com... 9. http://www.religioustolerance.org... |
48 | 555c5188-2019-04-18T16:30:19Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The legal driving age should be lowered to 14 Thank you for instigating it. Because the legal driving age varies with each individual country, and Pro did not specify, I will assume that Pro is directing is arguments towards the United States. Therefore, I will argue that the legal driving age should not be lowered to 14 in the United States and remain at the age of 16. However, I am certain that if Pro's arguments was directed globally, my arguments would still remain valid. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________I will begin with a brief rebuttal of Pro's claims:"The legal driving age should be lowered to 14 beccause of the many responsibilities of becoming an adult. "-I don't quite understand this statement. How does having many responsibilities as an adult have anything to do with lowering the legal driving age? Your thesis is unclear. I request you to clarify. "All over the world many teenagers can be more respnsible than an adult. "-Adults are generally more responsible than teenagers, due mainly to the fact that they must live and take care of themselves. Teenagers generally live with parents who take care of them. Therefore, most adults are more responsible than most teenagers. However, I concede that there are some teenagers that can be more responsible than some adults. -I would like to remind Pro that teenagers are allowed to drive. The legal driving age in the United States is 16, which is a teen age. "I'm not saying all of them just a handful. "-Pro has conceded to the fact that not all teenagers are responsible enough to drive. "I think we should reward those who continue to show responsibility and accentuate the correct form of what we want in a teenager. "-Pro is using his opinions to support his claim. Very well, if he can use his opinions to support his argument, I can use my opinions to oppose them. I dissagree with his opinion. I for one believe that responsibility should not be rewarded, but expected. Also, by accentuating what we want in a teenager, we are in a sense conditioning them to be what we want them to be and not what they want themselves to be. Therefore, it can be said that by accentuating what we want in a teenager, we are deriving them of their freedom of choice. "Many see teenagers as a threat to the community, just a stupid kid who has no idea what the world means or is like. "-This is another opinion made by Pro with no evidence to support. I don't think this is the case in society. I think many see teenagers as the future generation who will uphold their legacies and continue the progression of the world. "Those who have ecletic smarts and abilities should be treated as so. "-First of all it's spelled "eclectic". -Second of all, one can argue that this is discriminating and unfair towards normal people without eclectic abilities. "Most adults who have messed up as a wealthy, poor , middle class person divulge their mistakes. Adults can be as irresponsible, unhealthy human being than any teenager out there, therefore i believe in rewarding those who are trustworthy and responsible. "-Pro is contradicting himself. Wouldn't people who divulge ther mistakes be responsible? Part of responsibility is admitting your mistakes, therefore, people who divulge their mistakes are actually responsible. -Pro is suggesting that because some teenagers are more responsible than adults, adults should not be able to drive legally, but teenagers should. This is absurd due to reasons I don't think I need to bring up. ________________________________________________________________________________ADDENDUM-14 year olds do not neccessarily need to drive, therefore there is no neccessary need to lower the legal driving age to 14. They are in middle school and most likely have guardian(s) that look after them and drive for them. When they reach the age of 16, it would be more reasonable for them to drive. ________________________________________________________________________________*Pro made strong assumptions that I am skeptical about due to the fact that it is difficult to be proven or supported by evidence. Because responsibility is not something one can generally measure, Pro does not have sufficient evidence to make his implied claim that 14 year olds are more responsible, if not just as responsible as adults. *Pro is confusing 14 year olds with teenagers as a whole. While 14 year olds are teenagers, not all teenagers are 14 year olds, and some teenagers are eligible to drive because they are 16 or older. |
16 | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug's manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011 |
30 | 579ea609-2019-04-18T19:52:27Z-00002-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Gun Control Washington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are "unenforceable." On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. "And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics," Timoney said. "You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise." Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, "Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention," Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, "Guns and Suicide," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., "Firearms and Family Violence," Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., "Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems," Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the "quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths." Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book "Private Guns, Public Health" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me. |
15 | 61bcb727-2019-04-18T15:46:03Z-00004-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. |
15 | 88924a74-2019-04-18T15:53:31Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public Rebuttals: "The resolution is questioning what "governments should" do. This raises questions about the legitimate scope of government: is drug effectiveness testing something that should fall under government purview, for example. It is my contention that such testing is not something that a government should do because it is outside of a just governments legitimate scope of authority."You avoid the fact that the FDA is a branch of government that test for both safety and effectiveness. (1) A quote from the article:"The FDA falls within the executive branch of the US government, under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). FDA is headed by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, who is appointed by the President of the United States, confirmed by the US Senate, and serves at the President's discretion. The Office of the Commissioner (OC) oversees all the Agency's components and is responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of FDA's mission."End quote.If it really is outside " governments legitimate scope of authority.", then why is it already here and testing drugs for both safety and effectiveness. You want to change the system for no good reason."To understand a governments boundaries, we first need to lay down the framework in an understanding of human dignity. I will show an important link between autonomy and human dignity that links the concept of freedom to our self-worth. According to G.W.F. Hegel, autonomy separates us from all other things. A table cannot be blamed for a moral failing because it cannot choose to do something wrong. A human, on the other hand, is morally relevant insofar as we have this autonomy. This moral worth grants every person an inherent dignity that should be respected. "At the heart of [human dignity] is a twofold intuition about human beings: namely, that all, just by being human, are of equal dignity and worth, no matter where they are situated in society, and that the primary source of this worth is a power of moral choice within them, a power that consists in the ability to plan a life in accordance with one's own evaluation of ends." [1] From this analysis, we can conclude that it is a human's rational autonomy that gives rise to human dignity. Autonomy is the brightline that separates personhood from other conditions, and that marks out human beings as worthy of moral consideration. "The idea here is that a human being, as a rational agent endowed with self-awareness, free will, and the possibility of formulating a plan of life, has an inherent dignity and cannot properly be treated as a mere thing, or used against his will as an instrument or resource in the way an inanimate object might be. In line with this, Nozick also describes individual human beings as self-owners. The thesis of self-ownership, a notion that goes back in political philosophy at least to John Locke, is just the claim that individuals own themselves--their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor." [2]"Okay. What does this have to do with drug testing?See paragraph 3 in "Pro's case"First off, I see a major problem with this paragraph specifically with this sentence." In particular, such a state cannot regulate what citizens eat, drink, or smoke (since this would interfere with their right to use their self-owned bodies as they see fit)"First off, in prohibition, people weren't allowed to drink alcohol. So that contradicts what it supposedly says you can and can not do with government. We have a law against marijuana in many states. That contradicts with that too!See paragraph 4 in "Pro's case"I see many problems with this. First off, the government right now regulates the testing and approval of drugs. This goes against your human rights argument. I want the physical law that states that the governments can't interfere with what the government is already doing.Second off, the government can supposedly only prevent to direct harm. I want the physical law that states that the government can only fix that. " The government should therefore test for safety but it should not test for effectiveness, which could hinder a companies' ability to sell products, allows the government to meddle in the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. setting arbitrary levels for what constitutes effectiveness), and interferes with a person's right to spend their money on any product of their choosing--including one that is potentially ineffective"This is illogical in so many ways. One, it can kill people if the pill is not effective. Two, I don't get how it interferes with a person's right to spend their money. Last, I can turn the question back around and ask this. Wouldn't it interfere with a persons right to spend their money on a product of their choosing, even if it isn't safe?" This may go against the grain of accepted logic, but it is a conclusion that stems from a logical premise."It does go against logic entirely."And surely, corporations could make money from running drug testing services, thereby giving people the same effectiveness testing without expanding the role of government unduly."Again, I may turn the question back on you.And surely, corporations could make money from running drug testing services, thereby giving people the same safety testing without expanding the role of government unduly.Also, if the government test it, then there is little to no chance of false safety tests that passed, when they are not effective.This would mean the government is more trustworthy to see if a drug is effective than a company that is releasing the drug."So, the resolution was fundamentally asking what a government should, and should be empowered, to do. I have demonstrated that it is beyond a government's legitimate authority (as restrained by the thesis of self-ownership) to test for anything but safety."You haven't proved a thing. The government has a legitimate authority now, and it is working. Why would we change that?My opponent is trying to mis-lead you and here is why.1. There is no law that states the government can't interfere with testing drugs, let alone for effectiveness.2. The government has been testing drugs for years for both safety and effectiveness. If it goes against human rights, why are the governments doing it?3. My opponent has used some links that are not needed, and he has used some in the wrong way.Link 1: PhilosophyLink 2: Remember paragraph 4 in "Pro's Case" You think that those are literal human right put forth by the government. It isn't. If you scroll up you will see the title: Robert Nozick: Political Philosophy. This isn't set laws. I have also pointed out flaws in his philosophy. Link 3: Outdated. The article was made in 1963As you can see, virtually all of my opponent's case is based off of mainly one man's philosophy. This is how he thinks it should be.However, we look at my side and see proven history that shows the FDA works. Why should we change it.Ladies and gentleman, be wary of my opponent's next argumentOn to Pro.1. http://www.uleduneering.com... |
39 | b2b9ae19-2019-04-18T12:51:18Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage In this debate, pro will be defending the abolition of the minimum wage, and attacking arguments in defense of the minimum wage. Pro will be explicating the advantages of abolishing the minimum wage, disadvantages of the minimum wage, and how the impact of a minimum wage should be deemed null. C1-Minimum Wage Impact: The impact of the minimum wage should be deemed insignificant. According to Heratage.org, 2.9% of our population makes minimum wage. This piece of evidence obfuscates the minimum wage thesis entirely. The population that is impacted by the minimum wage are young people. Here are the statistics: 79% of the population work part time jobs. 62% of the population are enrolled in school. 68% of the population possess family incomes above 150%. The impact of raising the minimum wage will benefit the adholescent. A population which a majority of them would be deemed well off. Raising the minimum wage would only benefit 2.9% of our population. C2-Young people:The minimum wage already should be rendered null in regards to the incomes of families, but there is also more to be discussed about the negative implications of the minimum wage's impact on young people. Wages are of paramount importance not only to the employee, but to the employer. An employer usually will make a risky investment in a worker with no prior skill set. The government would deem it only acceptable for that employer to employ a most likely young boy with no prior skil set with 7 dollars or more an hour. The minimum wage lowers the prospects of young peoples' capability to acquire a job. C3-Small Business Impact:The minimum wage also has a significant impact the efficiency of small businesses. I offer the following examples: "I am here every day, from 6:30 in the morning to 9:00 at night. I probably average 100 hours a week here at the course," Martha said, noting that hiring more staff is a luxury her small seasonal profit margins haven't afforded her. Recently, Martha had to let her restaurant's dishwasher and table busser go — hats she now wears along with her other employees. If voters approve a hike in Nebraska's minimum wage floor to $9 an hour by 2016, Martha fears she will have to shoulder an even greater load just to keep her business running. The increased wage and tax costs of the hike would mean fewer hours to schedule for her employees, particularly in the course's golf shop. Pat Haines, also a survey respondent, is another entrepreneur who is worried about the proposed increase. Haines runs North Bowl, a bowling alley in North Omaha. Haines knows the business well, in part because he spent his childhood years playing there. He likes giving young people in North Omaha a chance at their first jobs by bringing them on for part-time work at the bowling alley. Haines worries that he will not be able to make as many investments in young people with limited skills and experience if the minimum wage is raised to $9 an hour. He also thinks that the increased labor costs will seriously impact his bottom line, forcing him to raise prices in a community that is sensitive to jumps in the cost of entertainment. "The money has to come from somewhere. Either I have to raise prices, or do more with fewer employees, or cut the work hours of the ones I already have. But any of those decisions just makes it harder to grow the business, give more people work, and keep our customers coming back so everyone can be paid," Martha said Gary Tharnish, the president of Burton & Tyrell's Flowers in Lincoln, expresses similar anxiety about the proposal to increase the minimum wage. Like Haines, Tharnish likes to hire young people seeking their first jobs and then train them to be productive workers. "I hire teenagers and then teach them," Tharnish explains. "Hopefully, at the end of three months they have learned enough to work at the shop. If they work out, they get a raise." Tharnish says that opportunity might disappear if the minimum wage is ratcheted up to $9 an hour. If that happens, he will have to stop investing so much time on inexperienced young workers and hire older workers who need less supervision. "If the minimum wage is increased I am simply going to look for adults who just want to work a few hours per week and forget about hiring teenagers." C4: Abolishing the minimum wage: The current federal minimum wage's impact on our population is null. 2.9% of the individuals on the minimum wage are young people from financially stable families. The minimum wage is only capable of harming people when inceased. A significant portion of economists have claimed that an increase of the minimum wage by 2 dollars would lead to a prollific depletion of 500,000 jobs. Proponents of the minimum wage claim that the minimum wage ceases any attempt my businesses to manipulate employee wages to their own advantage. Those proponents should be informed that the businesses compete for money as much as they compete for employees. If a business purposfully decreases wages that would be percieved to be unfair by the employee, than the employee has every right to find work at another company which assures him financial security. I request that my adversary answer the following questions?What positive impact does the minimum wage have on our population?Do you concede to the fact that an increase of the minimum wage implements a strain on small businesses? Can you explain why the minimum wage should not deemed to be null? Works Cited: http://www.heritage.org... http://www.platteinstitute.org... http://www.newsmax.com... |
43 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
48 | 8883e889-2019-04-18T18:29:20Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age R1: Kids are gonna consume alcohol anywayYeah I have had a few sips of alcohol here and there, but I am supervised so I do not go drunk. (Alcohol tastes like... ) You provide no statistics on how lowering the drinking age would lower or not affect the amount of drinking deaths, you just say kids do it anyway. Sure they will, but you need stats to prove that lowering the drinking age has no effect, whereas I have stats showing a higher age lowers the amount of users.Seniors who lived in states with a drinking age of 21 drank less then ones with lower drinking ages. [1] [2] When 18 year olds can legally drink they give a role model to younger kids to drink at younger ages, having a higher drinking age lowers the... effect of this role model aspect as the 18 yer old is still "teenage". [3] As I have proven, a higher drinking age lowers users. So my next argument relies on that one: Kids who start drinking at a younger age are more likely to drink heavily in college. They re more likely to have problems with work, school, or problems with the police. [4] My point is the 21 age lowers users, heavy drinkers, and prevents them from getting addicted at an early age.R2: Drink and driveOnce again you needed to prove that lowering the age to 18 would decree or have no effect on these areas. Also you have not fulfilled the BOP, as you are advocating a change in the status quo. s you have only said they will do it anyway, which is only partially correct, I will prove a higher drinking age would lower the amount of DWI and drunk crashes:Lowering the drinking age for beer to 18 in 48 states in the 1970s saw a 11% increase in fatalities. [5] When Arizona lowered its drinking age to 19 they say an increase of 25% in alcohol related deaths and a 35% increase in traffic fatalities. [6] A study in Michigan found when the drinking age lowered to 18 crashes increased by 35% and crashes for young men rose by 17%.[7] Another Michigan Study showed when the drinking age went from 21--->18 DWI arrests rose 141% for 18-20 year olds. [8]My point: A higher drinking age prevents people from dying, and that lowering the drinking age increases deaths related to alcohol.R3: NothingDropped my teenage and brain development argument.Conclusion: The drinking age SHOULD NOT BE LOWERED. The current age saves lives and helps make sure the youths brain doesn't get fried. Vote CON!!!Sources:O'Malley, PM and AC Wagenaar, "Effects of Minimum Age Laws on Alcohol Use, Related Behaviors and Traffic Crash Involvement Among American Youth: 1976 - 1987," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(5):478-491, 1991. [1]Laixuthai, A and F Chaloupka, "Youth Alcohol Use and Public Policy," Contemporary Policy Issues, 11:70-81, 1993. [2]Bonnie, RJ, "Discouraging Unhealthy Personal Choices Through Government Regulation: Some Thoughts About the Minimum Drinking Age," In Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws, Wechsler, H (Ed.), Lexington, MA: DC Heath Co., p39-58, 1980. [3]Barnes, GM, et al., "Alcohol Misuse Among College Students and Other Young Adults: Findings from a General Population Study of New York State," The International Journal of the Addictions, 27(8):917-934, 1992. [4]Cook, PJ and G Tauchen, "The Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Legislation on Youthful Auto Fatalities, 1970 - 1977," Journal of Legal Studies, 15(4):159-162, 1984. [5]Arizona Department of Public Safety, "An Impact Assessment of Arizona's Lowered Legal Drinking Age and a Review of Previous Research," Statistical Center, 1981. [6]Douglas, RL and JA Freedman, "Alcohol-Related Casualties and Alcohol Beverage Market Response to Beverage Alcohol Availability Policies in Michigan," The University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute, 1977. [7]Hammond, RL, "Legal Drinking Age at 18 or 21 -- Does It Make Any Difference?" Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 18:9-13, 1973. [8] |
8 | 423a6ad6-2019-04-18T13:35:13Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Restricted abortion should be legal First, I wish to emphasize the prompt asks whether abortion SHOULD be legal. Obviously, abortions currently are legal in the U.S., but that is irrelevant. Pro will argue why they should continue, and I will argue why they should not. I will do so on the basis of logic, science, and legal consistency, under the assumption that human life deserves to be protected. But, since there was no format specified, I will start with rebuttals. == Rebuttals == Violinist Analogy: It would, no doubt, be alarming to awake and find yourself plugged into the kidneys of a musician against your will. However, pregnancy is not akin to being kidnapped and plugged into a stranger. Consider, if you have agreed to donate your kidney to a possible recipient, then there is no justification to willingly unplug and kill that recipient. This, I contend, is a more accurate analogy to pregnancy. All sex (except rape) is consensual by definition. And, since even the best birth control cannot advertise 100% effectiveness, all consensual sex therefore comes with the possibility of pregnancy. Therefore, consenting to sex is by definition consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. This is indisputable. If we once again relate this to our consenting organ donor, then it appears Pro's analogy has little relevance. Pro did not directly bring up pregnancy due to rape, so I will not address that in this round. Woman vs. Billionaires: Once again Pro presents a false analogy. Pro tries to equate billionaires refusing to give up their fortunes to women refusing to give up their bodily rights. The problem is that these two examples are totally dissimilar. A billionaire refusing to give money to charity is not directly killing anyone. Sure, you could say indirectly maybe, but that standard could be applied to all of us - I could be indirectly killing a coal miner in Peru since my choice to flip a light switch on is driving the demand for a dangerous energy source. In contrast, abortion is directly and intentionally ending a human life who shares half your chromosomes. Big difference. 3 Day Embryo vs. 5 Yr. Old Child: An interesting moral dilemma, but I can play that game all day - what if one room contained 100 strangers and the other contained your sister? What if one had your child and one had your wife? How about a sick person vs. a healthy one? Who do you save? If both groups are morally equivalent, then would you simply flip a coin? Of course not. To reduce this dilemma to a simple checklist is a severe straw man. This analogy seems clever when applied to embryos, but if fails when applied to other types of humans, which makes it useless. If Abortion is Murder: Here Pro tries to show that "anti-choicers" must either advocate putting all women in prison or convert to pro-choice. This is largely an irrelevant point since abortion is currently legal, and it has nothing to say about why abortion SHOULD remain legal other than Pro thinks it seems "absurd." If abortion were to become illegal, obviously there would be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case with all laws. I fail to see how this is controversial. Right to Life Untenable: It is a Non Sequitur that supporting a "right to life" must mean supporting an absolute right to life. Pro gives no reason to believe one necessarily implies the other. I am not advocating a "simplistic absolute right to life" anymore than Pro is advocating a "simplistic absolute right to end life." I believe we are debating specifically about embryonic abortions, and that's what I'm going to stick to. Another straw man erected by Pro. Personhood and Rights: Here Pro tries to show that an embryo is not a person using 5 criteria. First, Pro gives us no reason to accept these 5 criteria as authoritative. I could easily offer other criteria supported by other philosophers or doctors, but let's go along with it for now. The problem is there's evidence that at just 9 weeks, an embryo can hiccup and react to loud noises [1]. This can meet Pro's criteria #1 and #3. Since Pro claimed that an embryo, even if we are "extremely flexible," meets zero criteria, this argument is now at least in doubt if not refuted. To take it further, let's apply these criteria to other people - a brain-dead person lacks 1-5, an unconscious person lacks 1-5, a severely mentally handicapped person lacks 1-5, on and on.... are none of these groups people? Can they therefore be killed at will? Not only do embryos meet some of these criteria, but this definition fails when applied to other groups of people and should be rejected. == Argument == Scientifically, legally, and logically, an embryo should be considered human life. 1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [2]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [3]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. 2. Federal Law - even Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted accidentally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. For the sake of legal consistency, restricted abortion should not be legal. 3. Logical Beginning of Life - Beyond conception, there is no clear or consistent definition of life's beginning. There are very few people who draw the line at birth - even the most ardent abortion supporter would not advocate aborting 3 minutes before birth. But where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? This is a very difficult question to answer since there is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of life, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. Viability is often used by pro-choice advocates, but this is a largely meaningless term that I'd be happy to address in the next round if Pro wishes. [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [3] https://www.nlm.nih.gov............ |
26 | 18189d76-2019-04-18T19:26:43Z-00004-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | That on balance, the NCLB act has improved academic achievement in the United States I negate "Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the United States" for the following contentions: 1) Improvements cannot be causally linked to No Child Left Behind While, 2)Problems in academic achievement can be linked to the act's implementation Contention One: Improvements cannot be causally linked to No Child Left Behind. Dr. Ladner elaborates, "The interaction of the NCLB policies has created an incentive for states to lower testing standards in order to avoid federal sanctions. Researchers have reported a pattern whereby states lower passing thresholds and otherwise "dumb down" assessments to boost proficiency scores and avoid federal sanctions under NCLB." Essentially, the standards set by No Child Left Behind require schools to lower their testing standards so that schools can still receive funding. Thus, just reading state test scores doesn't actually demonstrate an improvement in academic achievement, it demonstrates a fundamental flaw of the Act which is that it lowers the amount of achievement required to meet false-proficiency markers. John Cronin of the Thomas Fordham institute elaborates, "The primary factor explaining improvement in student proficiency rates in many states is a decline in the test's estimated cut score. Half of the reported improvement in reading, and 70 percent of the reported improvement in mathematics, appear idiosyncratic to the state test. Virginia, often praised for its leadership in education reforms such as its statewide "Standards of Learning," reported that 73 percent were at or above "proficiency" in state reading—compared with their national testing figure of just 35 percent." States that lower proficiency markers to increase federal funding are widespread. However, markers like GPA, which are not subject to fluctuation in state standards, demonstrate NCLB's inefficiency in actually improving academic achievement. Chester Finn of the Thomas Fordham institute reports, "The average grade for state standards across all subjects was a disappointing "C-minus" in 2000 and remains so today. Two-thirds of the nation's K-12 students attend schools in states with C, D, or F-rated standards." At the point where students aren't performing better in the classroom, but are only performing better on state tests (due to them being dumbed down) it does not make sense to vote Pro. Contention Two: Problems in academic achievement can be linked to the act's implementation. Gershon Ratner, executive director of Citizens for Effective Schools writes, "By treating increasing test scores as the end in itself, the Act pressures schools to "drill and kill" students with test preparation, narrow the curriculum, and take other steps to artificially raise test scores. This needlessly and harmfully diverts schools' attention away from doing what needs to be done: making the difficult changes necessary to dramatically improve teaching and learning. To the contrary, what NCLB has widely generated is "teaching to the test," i.e., teaching a scripted, narrowed and dumbed-down curriculum concentrated on memorization of facts and the lower-level thinking skills needed to pass the standardized tests." As a result, academic achievement has faltered in the United States. The Center on Education Policy reports, "While average NAEP scores increased in math, it was at a much slower rate than in previous years. Results for grades 4 and 8 climbed dramatically in the 1990's but essentially flat lined from 03 to 05." NCLB testing can be attributed to these losses because it forces teachers to teach test-taking skills that are irrelevant to the higher order thinking skills necessary to actually perform on national tests. The impact is clear, students are not receiving necessary teaching and so they're faltering where they should be succeeding; rates of growth have dropped due to NCLB. In fact, according to Harvard Study, growth rates have either dropped or stagnated as a result of No Child Left Behind. Finally, as a result of this "teaching to the test", The Government Accountability Office reports, "The number of schools identified for needing improvement increased from about 8,400 in school year 2004-2005 to over 10,700 in 2006-2007." So instead of helping increase school performance, NCLB has rather increased the number of schools needing improvement. It is because testing scores in support of No Child Left Behind are inaccurate and skewed, while true measures of academic success demonstrate unfortunate problems with the teaching styles that stifle achievement that my partner and I urge you to negate. Next, onto my opponents points: His Contention One: Subpoint A: It's important to note that he quotes the Center on Education Policy, which says STATE test scores are the highest they've ever been. That EXACT same study states in the conclusions that, "increases in test scores cannot be causally linked to No Child Left Behind." moreover, the study only measured state test scores which, as I outline in my first contention, are subject to the dumbing down of state test procedures. Next, he talks about how test scores are the highest they've ever been. This isn't because of No Child Left Behind, students have been growing since the 90's, what we need to examine is if these growth trends have slowed or sped up due to No Child Left Behind. As I discuss in my case, both Harvard and the CEP confirm that these growth rates have slowed. This simply means that No Child Left Behind has hurt achievement by causing it come at a slower rate. Subpoint B: Actually, he says that they're increasing reading and math - which I agree on. However this means that they're taking time away from history and science, which is why the United States has fallen over 10 points on average on international science tests since the inception of No Child Left Behind. Most of this contention is on history and science, and while he gives quotes the data does not support this point. Next, the Department of Education study actually has to do with state test scores, and I've already explained the growth in those areas. Contention Two: The CEP study (Which he cites) actually says that the achievement gap shrinkage in many states was due to white students performing worse than usual. Moreover, this is only a small slice of the population (minorities), when we examine growth trends on the whole it is obvious that No Child Left Behind has stifled academic achievement by stifling the academic growth of students on the whole. Contention Three: He says that it has improved teacher quality, but that's not true. In fact, higher quality teachers do not even go to these lower quality schools. When AYP markers label a school as "Failing" it decreases the chance a teacher will go to that school by over 50%. As a result, the divisive line between high quality teachers and low performing schools has only grown wider since No Child Left Behind. |
31 | d2157663-2019-04-18T14:25:23Z-00000-000 | Is obesity a disease? | It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIIIIIIIIM JONG UN IS MY BEEEEEEST FRIEND.In other words, this is a troll debate. Please DO NOT vote on this debate. |
21 | ee56bf87-2019-04-18T18:01:17Z-00009-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Human induced global warming exists Resolution: Human Induced Global Warming Exists I will be arguing that the resolution is true and refute my opponent's claims, while my opponent will argue that it is false and also refute my claims. BOP is shared. No new arguments, only rebuttals in round 5. Carbon Dioxide a. Correlation to temperature CO2 is increasing. In fact, the level of it in our atmosphere now is higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. [1] Temperature records show that the temperature is increasing, [2] and that CO2 does have a strong correlation to the temperature,[3][2] without any apparent lag, as shown in the short term chart at [2]. b. Source of CO2 For the global warming to be caused by man, the CO2 has to be man made or have some kind of relationship to human activities. Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for about 40% of the total CO2 emissions in 2009,[4] followed by transportation at 31% in 2010[4], and industry at 14% in 2010. [4] As you can see, humans do emit lots of CO2. Other Greenhouse Gases a)Methane Methane has 25 times the effect on the atmosphere than CO2 over 100 years, [5] and it is increasing.[5] "In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution." [5] For this to be a part of human induced global warming, it has to have a human based source, and it does. Rice fields generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. [6] Municipal solid waste also produce Methane. [6] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://ossfoundation.us... [3]http://www.grida.no... [4]http://www.epa.gov... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... |
2 | 52ece351-2019-04-18T16:22:02Z-00005-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie Contrary to what my contender has said there are ways for which gays have safe sex. From what I am seeing my contender is making many assumptions and stereotypes. If you could begin citing sources which back your claims that could add maybe a little more evidence. You are making it seem as if safe sex just does not apply to the gay community which is just plain wrong not only gays get STD's. "Half of all sexually active people will get an STD by age 25" that includes straight, bisexual, and gays. Ways to prevent the possible spread of HIV and other STDs are to "Get to know someone before having sex with them and talk honestly about STDs and getting tested"before you have sex" also "Use a condom correctly and use one every time you have sex." Condom breaks or lies about condoms can happen to everyone who is sexually active. There are 6 major ways gay men can avoid getting STDs and HIV. "Condoms and Lubricant, Negotiated Safety, Strategic Positioning, Withdrawing, Serosorting, and Undetectable Viral Loads." The stats do show that gay men do have a much higher HIV percentage but with the help of education such as this and actually carrying out these practices could lower that percentage greatly. Also my Contenders statistic that 75% of gay men is more than inaccurate "MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available(http://www.cdc.gov...)" Now I am not saying those number are good by any means but it shows gays shouldn't be discriminated because of it. For the argument that all gay men have to wear diapers or the assumption that most have to is ridiculous. I am sure some do for ease or other reasons of their own, but if they are wearing a diaper because that is there only option, then they are lacking crucial information. Gay men or anyone conceding in anal sex have many ways to help fix that issue such as; Solesta, Secca, Interstim, and kegel exercises. With that being said I believe you and many others should educate yourself before making assumptions and stereotypes on gays. Thank you. (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://www.gmhsa.org.au...) (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://health.clevelandclinic.org...) |
1 | e5083ebf-2019-04-18T15:47:48Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Private school is better/safer than public school The public school system has numberous issuesTeacher Tenure - this protects any poor quality teacher from being fired. This also terminates a teacher's fear of being fired, so even a good teacher can get lazy.Students are assigned to the public school in their area. This forces some students to attend a more corrupt, or dangerous school, and ensures that the school will have enough students to stay open. The school can change the additude of the students, and lead them to failure.Common Core Standards - the poor teachers that tenure protects are now educating their students with common core standards. It would be bad enough if all teachers were at least average in performance. Common core is widely known as not being very efficient, and soon will be limmiting students. Government officials could soon start poisoning the minds of students with common core standardsPublic schools can be under-funded, which can lead to cancellation of activities like choir, band, dance, and theater. Over-achieving, intellingent kids are often a minority. They will be discouraged among students, and taught that smart means unpopular. There are many popular misconceptions and myths about private schoolStudents can use money to pass a class, or get good grades - this is a common, and hilarious myth. Private schools have very strict rules about giving a teacher any money, even as a gift. Especially in middle and high school, where students are more likely to try cheting. If you were to ask anyone at a private school, student or teacher, they would all tell you that no one tries to use money to pass classes.All students in private school are rich, and upper class - this is a steriotype. Students in private school are mainly upper-middle class, or somewhere in that area. Some students even get work-study oppritunities, which lets lower-class students attend private school for cheaper. They only have to help with a little work, like helping to clean after school. Low-8ncome students also can receive free lunch. Of coarse, some students in private school are richer. What other school would these students go to?Students are all very sheltered from the real world - a very common steriotype. Since most people go to public school, private school students will live in neiborhoods with public school students, and can become friends with them. All private school students are aware of the problems low class families face. They learn from the news, from public school friends, and from common knolwdge. Anyway, is being sheltered from drugs, alcohol, and other illegal activity really a bad thing? In a private school, students have a safe, pure, and healthy learning environment. |
46 | 41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality. I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is? |
24 | da2dded4-2019-04-18T17:39:27Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Income Tax Thank you. Let's begin with a history of the progressive income tax. The first progressive income tax known was implemented in Great Britain in the 14th century. The first American progressive income tax was created by the Revenue Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln to raise money during the height of the Civil War.[1] Essentially, the progressive income tax kills the drive to succeed. When the rich are taxed much higher than the poor and middle class, it discourages growth. Why would I desire to be rich when the government will take close to half of my earnings? Fact: The top 1% of Americans contribute 37.4% of our tax revenue.[2] I ask: Is this not enough? Would we have the rich pay half of all taxes? While were at it, why not take that wealth and spread it around? The road to hell, or should I say, socialism, is paved with good intentions. A better, "fairer" course of action would be to institute a flat tax, charging all Americans the same rate, being both reasonable and efficient by eliminating all loopholes. You pay 15%. No tax credits or anything. It's that simple. Why should we complicate our tax codes further? [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.nationalreview.com... |
40 | ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty should be allowed I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them. |
9 | 5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should have to wear school uniforms There's seriously no proof that that school even exists. What type of school has 500 students in one class!!! No wonder why half of them are failing. How can one teacher teach 500 kids at once. Don't blame it on the uniform, it has nothing to do about it. If your new school had a uniform policy it would be number one, but they decide they don't need it and all those intelligent kids aren't being used for they're full potential. If those school have a uniform policy they wouldn't be putting the make up on and combing they're hair, because they would of did it at home because they would spent less time trying to choose what they should wear to school. No, the kids at your new school care about they're cloths. You just don't see it because your all caught up in your clothes not on other people and your school work. Why would tensions escalate if everybody is wearing the same thing, no one is above or below anyone in their fashion. Fights don't start when kids are all wearing the same thing. They only start when one person knows the other kid is wearing something better than them and take the first blow. Think about it would you start a fight with someone who is wearing the same clothing or someone who keeps bragging about how much richer they're families and how stupid you're cloths look. In my school there's a uniform policy and a lot of rich kids. All the kids are wearing the same thing so you can't tell who's rich and who's not. Students at the school I go to there are no rich cliques to bully the poor kids or poor tough kids that get angry real easy and start fights. Also uniforms are good for the children's parents. Why, uniform cost a lot and schools require you to get them. In a school without uniform policy parents have to buy more cloths which cost more money and time to get them. Wearing one thing for the whole entire year is much cheaper for the parents and helps the child go to school faster. |
33 | 2e8edb11-2019-04-18T16:22:57Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health. |
28 | 94aebaa-2019-04-18T19:21:27Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized. Prostitution-the act of engaging in sexual activities for money. Legalized-Making it legal for persons over the age of 18 to be prostitutes or to "use" prostitutes at a federal level. However, prostitutes must be mandated to carry a license. Introuduction Currently, 49 states outlaw prostitution (Nevada is the only one that doesn't). As PRO I stand in affirmation that Prostitution should be legalized. I believe so for the following reasons. a) Prostitution is a victimless crime. No one is a victim of prosecution. It is not on the same level as rape or murder, where victims are involved. Prostitution is just a way of conducting commerce. To limit prosecution would be to limit freedom. b) Revenue. Legalizing prostitution would lead to a boost in the economy (not like were to going to come out of a recession or anything, but it will increase GDP). In countries where prostitution is legalized (Thailand, The Netherlands, etc) "sex tourism" is a big part of their economies. People use other services (hotels, restaurants) while using conducting "sex tourism". Also, the government could tax the the activity for a nice profit. c) The Equal Protection Clause is violated under the current law. In the current law only prostitutes are prosecuted, their customers are not. A similar analogy would be to only prosecute drug dealers and not drug users. It violates prostitutes' rights. d) Prostitution will become more visible. The more "openness" of prostitution will make it easier to monitor and regulate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Thanks for taking this debate. |
10 | cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines should be mandatory I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too. |
44 | be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says "you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages," that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [1] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. "The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor"even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4] Sub-point C: CV corrects against "free riders." "The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized--ome might say hyper-polarized--by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. "State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society "in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives"." [3] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [7] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, "Compulsory voting: a critical perspective," British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate! |
13 | 6d4cc00d-2019-04-18T11:13:40Z-00007-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=vkXOwBIRX7Y - 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive1. Some laws of god. . . Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, Converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, Making wise the simple. " Since the laws of the LORD are perfect they can NEVER change. And yet they do by PEOPLE. Simple. Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, The flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. "1 Peter 1 24-25 "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, And the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. " 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, And is profitable for doctrine, For reproof, For correction, For instruction in righteousness:"Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. "Meaning you nor anyone can NEVER change god's word. Yet some did and do to serve their wants, Needs and desires. Oh I forgot, That includes jesus, A false prophet, Another subject entirely. 2. Now do you believe that you should die because YOUR god says so on a whim? OK so be it. Exodus 31:15"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, Holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, He shall surely be put to death. " So should you rightly die because you work on the sabbath? What if you have kids to feed? What if you are told to work on the sabbathor you will be fired? What then? Do you think that's a just law? Why? Why not? Yeah YOUR god is stupid. And YES the bible really means what it says. Yep. Do you REALLY want a book this vile and distasteful to be read by children and to children so they can get a yippy Kay yay wonderful messages from it? 3. Do you really want the bible used in our courts of law especially where there isn't any law? Deuteronomy 13 The entire chapter tells you to kill anyone who does not believe in your god. Verses 9-10 are especially keen on that. "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, And afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, That he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, From the house of bondage. " So you come on down here and kill me because I do not believe in your god and because I am trying to take you away from your god. AND you kill anyone that does not believe in your god also. Do you think that's a just law? Why? Why Not? Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 basically states the same thing. "2 If there be found among you, Within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, Man or woman, That hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, In transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, And worshipped them, Either the sun, Or moon, Or any of the host of heaven, Which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, And thou hast heard of it, And enquired diligently, And, Behold, It be true, And the thing certain, That such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, Which have committed that wicked thing, Unto thy gates, Even that man or that woman, And shalt stone them with stones, Till they die. "Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, He shall surely be put to death, And all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, As he that is born in the land, When he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, Shall be put to death. " Wow. What a great god guy huh? So do you think this is s good just law? Why? Why Not? The bible is VERY clear and concise. Christians MUST kill EVERYONE that does not believe in their god. Now follow your lord thy god's laws and do it! But you won't now will you? NO! That's because you know that your lord thy god is completely wacko and absurd. So in truth you do not believe in him. And remember all the 5 verses at the top of this debate! Your god's laws CAN NOT be changed. They stand tall now as back as they did when they were first written. Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, Or his mother, Shall surely be put to death. "Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. "Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, Let him die the death:"Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, Saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, Let him die the death. " Now should you be put to death because you curse at your parents? Why? Why Not? What if your parents rape, Beat and torture you? What then? There's no law to protect children in which should be one of the 10 commandments rather than god's bloated ego. Children DO HAVE RIGHTS in spite of what YOUR bible says. Now should you be put to death for a completely absurd law because you curse at your parents in which YOUR bible had to repeat AT LEAST 4 times (yeah we got it) so it must be pretty important? Why? Why Not? Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, Even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. "Leviticus 20:13"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. "Yeah god hates both gays and adulterers But like nearly everything there's never a reason why. Man is just supposed to accept nonsensical goop coming from CHANGED printed text. Wow. Proof of that its a lot of fun to compare the English translations of Leviticus 20:13 to see how off they are. So do you believe that you deserve the death penalty just because you commit adultery or because you are gay? Why? Why Not? Yep you carry around a book that demands the killing tens of millions of people, Well that is detestable and offensive. Deuteronomy 21: 18-21"18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, Which will not obey the voice of his father, Or the voice of his mother, And that, When they have chastened him, Will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, And bring him out unto the elders of his city, And unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, He will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, That he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, And fear. " So do you think that your son should be stoned to death just because he is like nearly every---single---teen---out---there that rebels against his parents when he becomes a teen? Why? Why Not? 4. Indeed YOUR snot nosed bible is so so so sexist. Indeed women have rightly and justly evolved beyond the cages of god. 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 "34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, Let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. " WRONG. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, Nor to usurp authority over the man, But to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, Then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, But the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. " WRONG. Sorry but how racist can these verses possibly be? Women have risen far above this crap and ARE NOT mere sex toy child bearing machines as these verses would strap women down to the ground. Leviticus 25:44-45"44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, Which thou shalt have, Shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, Of them shall ye buy, And of their families that are with you, Which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. "5. Then there's slavery folks. The owning of a person as personal property. In no way throughout the bible is this ever condoned or overlooked. Not by god and certainly not by jesus. So do you think that slavery is evil and hate? Why? Why not? Here's a few videos that prove god ensues slavery:http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=XIhNimX9Msk&t=643s%A0 - Is Slavery in the bible? http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Qtl8hIzb66A&t=579s%A0 - Matt Dillahunty Destroys a theist over SlaveryA few more verses on slavery…Exodus 21:20-21"20 And if a man smite his servant, Or his maid, With a rod, And he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, If he continue a day or two, He shall not be punished: for he is his money. "Titus 2:9"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, And to please them well in all things; not answering again;"6. Indeed YOUR god even hates children and infants which is the lowest of low. Sorry god, You cannot crawl out of the cellar to wipe you fanny with sandpaper to light up the septic tanks with this one…Leviticus 26:21-22 "And if ye walk contrary unto me, And will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, Which shall rob you of your children, And destroy your cattle, And make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. " Rob you of your children? Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, And their women with child shall be ripped up. " Isn't that a cute one? Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, And the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. " Yummy cannibalism. Here' a few video's to prove god hates children. . . http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=2zYG_fJLjBg&t=7s%A0 - god hates children http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5kQTIX7NRE4&t=578s%A0 - Atheist Debates get them while they are youngRULES:Put your brain together and think of ANYTHING to counter all 6 subjects as to what has been posted above as to why the bible should be judged as a "good" book and why the christian god should be worshiped for any reason(s). And again, NO ONE can change god's word PS 19:7, IS 40:8, 1 PT: 1 24-25, 2 TM 3:16, PR 30:5. God's word stands as is. dsjpk5 will NOT be allowed to vote in the voting process |
4 | c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance. |
38 | d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine 1. Drug legalization: a red herring My opponent makes many claims on a different topic: drug legalization. Although he raises many valid points, I would like to point out this is a merely a red herring. We are debating the effectiveness of medical marijuana, not the benefits/costs of drug legalization. My opponent claims I have instigated the discussion on drug legalization, claiming I talked about cartels. This is false; I never mentioned the cartels or drug legalization once, nor is it mentioned in the resolution, introduction, or rules. So, this point is a red herring that has no bearing on the debate. It is also interesting to consider this is not even a debate about the legality of medical marijuana! We are merely arguing the costs and benefits of medical marijuana use. Whether or not it is actually legal is irrelevant to the resolution as well. My opponent seems to have only skimmed my argument and looked at my sources. I cited NORML, a pro-marijuana organization, that makes the claim my opponent has refuted. Here is the problem: the article I cited didn't mention drug prohibition. Therefore, my opponent is merely using this to refute a different claim (not mentioned or relevant to the debate) to push his views through this median. I truly think these points he has made are not constrictive to the effectiveness of marijuana as a medicine. 2. Health effects of marijuana My opponent has cited studies claiming the amount of teenagers that think marijuana is harmless has increased. Now, let's make this clear: I do not think marijuana is harmless! Indeed, any rational person would agree that is has health effects. What I do think, however, are the claims arguing marijuana is a horribly harmful drug is untrue. Medical marijuana, when used for patients with cancer (and many other diseases or discomforts) has far more benefits than downfalls. As for (extensive) recreational use, I would generally recommend against it. Now, the amounts [most] recreational and medical users use marijuana isn't harmful. Smoking one joint per day actually does not harm lungs, and it may increase lung function. Studies have been published showing long term marijuana use leads to more respiratory problems, but more recent studies have shown there is likely no such link. Also, the vast preponderance of evidence supports the effectiveness of medical marijuana [1]. Some studies even say marijuana may improve lung function. A study with a sample of 5115 young adults were tracked for 20 years. This is the largest, one of the longest and most robust study on the issue. The results find moderate marijuana usage (which is all you would usually need for medical purposes) has, at worst, no effect on your lungs, and probably increases lung function [2]. Other studies find marijuana may slow down an aging brain [3]. It seems as though my opponents claim that no credible research supports my thesis is totally wrong. On addiction, all drugs can cause addiction. Medical marijuana has about a 9% addiction rate according to a very comprehensive 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, cited last round. Pshychotherapudic drugs have much higher addiction rates, ranging from 13 – 18% for teenagers, 13% for those 18-25, and 12-13% for those 16 and older [4]. With this data in mind, the fact these other medicines are considered effective but have higher addiction rates then marijuana merely shows the governmental, political, and ideological bias in the issue. The benefits for these drugs is much higher than the costs, marijuana has a plethora more studies confirming its effectiveness compared to these drugs as well as more studies proving it is less harmful than thought, not more (these drugs have more studies showing the "it's worse than we thought" mentality, whereas the best research now confirms marijuana is better than thought). CONCLUSION: A much shorter round then last, but the majority of my opponents statements were irrelevant. As voters, and those evaluating the evidence can see, marijuana's bad side is largely exaggerated, and its benefits (NOTE: benefits for medical use, NOT ABUSIVE RECREATIONAL USE) trump its downsides. I urge a pro vote. 1. http://www.benthamscience.com... 2. http://healthland.time.com... 3. http://healthland.time.com... 4. http://www.drugabuse.gov... |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution |
38 | 174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. |
11 | ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. " They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe." Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. " Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. " "Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law." This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) " Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons." That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. "and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point." Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest. |
10 | f36f640f-2019-04-18T12:25:26Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | On balance, children should be vaccinated. First, thank you to Malthelate for joining me in this discussion. To my opponent, please pause to reflect on the Rules and Structure enumerated in Round 1. Thank you. Since R1 was "acceptance" I will not rebut Con's informal arguments except to say that moving forward please provide evidence/citations for claims like "it gives autism". I promise to do the same and I will formally rebut the "autism" claim in round 2. Constructive Cases: (1) Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious disease in other countries [1]. (a) It seems like every time we talk about vaccinations we refer back to our own country. Well, it turns out, that the whole world has seen success in this arena. Each year, immunization averts 2-3 million deaths from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and measles. In 2011, 123 countries immunized over 90% of infants against measles. Between 2000 and 2011, vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths worldwide" [2]. UNICEF, the WHO and the UN all confirm that even in destitute countries we see declines in mortality. Yet, Americans continue to refer only to data FROM the U.S. [This is especially useful because vaccine opponents often cite declines in mortality (death) rates within the US prior to the introduction of vaccines using a misleading graph that does not include morbidities (prevalence)] - for reference alone. Not an argument [3]. (b) This graph paints a nice picture in terms we can understand about the clear decline of death rates from Measles across the globe. Please note that many of these countries do not have the medical care/economic means that vaccine opponents so often claim as proof that vaccines were/are unnecessary in the U.S. CEE: Central EuropeanSource: UNICEF, 2010 (2) Vaccine-preventable diseases haven't gone away. (a) It's easy to forget that these diseases still exist. Most of us haven't seen what happens to a child with Polio or a baby with Whooping Cough (WC) and so it just doesn't resonate with us. When considering immunization, one must weigh the options. On the one hand – in this example – we have WC. On the other, vaccines. So how do we weigh just these two examples against one another? Well, let's start with the easy stuff. (Note: this is how we should compare vaccines to diseases in other cases as well) [4]. Risk factors: Whooping Cough* Immunizations** Pneumonia - 1 in 4 children Fever - 1 in 4 children Apnea/Dyspnea (no/difficult breathing) >1 in 2 children Redness or swelling – 1 in 4 children Seizures - > 1 in 100 children Seizures – 1 in 14,000 children Brain Damage - 3 in 100 children High Fever >105F – 1 in 16,000 children Death – 1 in 100 children Serious Allergic reaction – 1 in 1 million children Source: * https://www.cdc.gov... ** https://www.cdc.gov... (b) There's some scary stuff going on here. Though, WC is scarier. And guess what? You get the same sort of results for Polio, Diphtheria, Measles, Mumps etc [4]. In each case the disease is significantly more dangerous than the immunization against it. Vaccines may cause mild fever and redness in one out of four children but only 1 out of every million have an allergic reaction. Now look at WC around the world. 1 out of every 100 children DIE. Approximately 1 out of every 100 children have SEIZURES. ~1 out of every 300 may suffer BRAIN DAMAGE. Nearly 1 out of 4 catch PNEUMONIA and greater than half have respiratory problems. Now ask yourself. "Would you rather risk Whooping Cough or Immunization?" So we see that vaccines have decreased disease incidence worldwide AND the dangers of disease far outweigh the dangers of vaccines. So we must conclude that ON BALANCE thus far, our children should be vaccinated. SOURCES: [1] http://www.who.int... [2] https://www.unicef.org... [3] https://vicskeptics.wordpress.com... [4] https://www.cdc.gov... |
15 | 96b3dd5b-2019-04-18T13:08:56Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned Here are my three contentions. A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsB. Animals are very different from humansC. Drugs tested on animals aren't safeLet's get started! A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsRegardless of whether or not animal testing is effective, there is no denying that the animals involved are mistreated. How so? Well, it's estimated that more than 100 million animals are killed for testing purposes. [1] Also, many are subjected to the following methods. Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc. Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death Genetic manipulation, e. g. , addition or "knocking out" of one or more genes Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination Prolonged periods of physical restraint Food and water deprivation Surgical procedures followed by recovery Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e. g. , electric shock or forced swimming Other manipulations to create "animal models" of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means [2] On top of this, I'd the animals don't die of their injuries, most of the time they'll be euthanized. [3]Many would claim that animals don't feel emotion or pain like people do, so it doesn't matter that the death toll due to animal testing is so high. That isn't exactly true either. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this. "The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don't understand well how they actually experience pain. " [4]They experience pain, we know that, but they can't communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can't consent to the experiments while people can. We can't be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation. B. Animals are very different from humansAnother common argument I see for animal testing is that animals are similar to people, so animals must be ideal test subjects. This is only somewhat true. Humans have some similarities to animals, yes, but it's the differences between humans and animals that can be problematic on both parties. In fact, even the species that most consider to be the closest to humans have major differences, making animal testing even more dangerous. "Even animals with greater similarity to humans, such as primates, have failed to predict what happens in humans. For example, monkeys treated with a therapeutic antibody (anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412) did not predict the potentially fatal immune response that was triggered in humans. The scientific community has also recently concluded that research on chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, is unnecessary and is being phased out. " [5]There are many factors for this. I'll use the chimpanzee for an example to compare to people. People and chimpanzees have different stance, strength, genes, etc. [6] On top of that, we have varying levels/different kinds of parasites and pathogens than chimps. [7] In other words, differences between just a human and a chimpanzee can prove to be very troublesome to work with. Imagine what can happen when we take rats, mice, birds, fish, frogs, etc. into consideration. The differences between a mouse and a human can go on and on. Because of the major variations, can we really consider other species to be reliable subjects? C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeThis contention picks up from my last. Because of how unreliable animal test subjects are, they can provide innacurate results. For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it's official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. [8] Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc. ) and they didn't experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. [9]Here's another example to hammer in my point. "Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. " [10]This can prove to be harmful to people, as unreliable results can seriously harm or kill people like in the examples above. In conclusion, animal testing harms animals, is ineffective, and can kill or harm people because of unreliable results. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]. http://www.peta.org...[2]http://www.hsi.org...[3]http://www.humanesociety.org...[4]http://www.independent.co.uk...[5]http://www.navs.org...[6]http://www.livescience.com...[7]http://www.yourwildlife.org...[8]http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...[9]http://jpsl.org...[10]http://animal-testing.procon.org... |
33 | da18aa91-2019-04-18T15:04:21Z-00003-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding. "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding." ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;) |
32 | 5022c09c-2019-04-18T17:31:45Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | This House favours the use of referendums as a form of decision-making None of his substantives have any worth to this debate as they are criticisms, essentially, of democracy - the idea of rule by the will of the majority. Whilst my opponent deplores my plans to make politics more 'populist', he fails to mention or even recognise the fact that democracy is inherently populist, and this will form the basis of most of my substantives in this new speech. First, however, I would like to issue some rebuttal. Rebuttal I: "Decision-making by referendum does not guarantee the best or even the right cause of action. "This is true, but nor do elections. People can elect the wrong party in much the same way that they can choose the wrong outcome in a referendum. This is a criticism of allowing everyone a say in politics (which we already have via e-petitions, lobbying, and elections - i. e. democracy), therefore Proposition does not deem it to be a valid criticism of referendums. Rebuttal II: "By changing the constitution. .. "We don't propose to make any legal changes which would require the Government to hold referendums, this House would merely like to see them used more. Forcing the Government to hold a referendum would be wrong. Rebuttal III: "We would be undermining the importance of politics. .. "This side of the House would disagree. We think making politics more populist makes it more relevant to society. The biggest problem faced by politics is the idea that it is seen as out of touch and in general under the present system people elect an official and hear little more from them until they seek re-election 4 or 5 years later. By giving politics a larger presence in citizens' lives, we believe that would say that politics is incredibly important, it is relevant to you and we want to know what you think. In other words, we're in touch, and we care. Rebuttal IV: "Voter turnout is low. This suggests that the electorate at large do not want to be involved in politics. "This is a common view, and I understand why Opposition has cited it. Research at the University of York, however, says that the fall in voter turnout is due to two factors. People feel alienated by the political parties (partly brought on by events such as the MPs' expenses scandal, I grant you), and they also feel that the parties have become too similar to each other and there is no real choice. [1] Therefore, we believe that using referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting. They are being presented with a clear choice which will lead to a very active decision - and the two possible consequences will be very different - and they will be being consulted by the parties without those parties wanting votes or re-election. Proposition feels that this point is knocked down. Rebuttal V: "How well-informed could they be come polling day? "With the advent of new opportunities presented by the Internet, apps and social media; we feel it would be very possible to run online campaigns regarding these referendums reasonably cheaply which would reach most citizens of the UK (alongside the continued use of Party Political Broadcasts). (This point stemmed from a point about apathy, see above. )Rebuttal VI: "There is no guarantee that that would increase voter turnout. "Opposition is right; we can't guarantee it. We feel that the use of referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting in elections, however we can't guarantee they will. Proposition feels, however, that Parliament is morally obliged to create avenues of participation for those who have lost faith in the existing ones. Rebuttal VII: "People typically only have their own self-interest at heart. "Again, the same applies for voting. If you look at voting patterns in the UK, they are highly class-based: people vote for parties which offer tax policies (for example) which favour them over others. Of course the same would apply for referendums, but that's democracy. Rebuttal VIII: "They have far more insight into the consequences of policy changes than the average voter. "If we go down this road too far, we end up with voting rights only being given to those of a certain IQ. Just because someone isn't insightful, it doesn't mean that - from a democratic point of view - their opinion is invalid, or should be ignored. People with very little political insight still vote in general elections, stand for Parliament, and even become MPs. Rebuttal IX: "They simply have an overview that the Everyman doesn't possess. "To suggest that the electorate shouldn't be trusted to make a decision is a very dangerous move. I'd like you to clarify what you are implying in your next speech, but my last piece of rebuttal also applies here. Rebuttal X: "The Everyman has neither the time nor the inclination to research and analyse his voting decision. "Again, we believe that political apathy is much lower than our Opposition would have people believe. We think people do care, and our evidence would agree. It is discontent with the voting system which is the problem. And, as previously stated, we believe that in the 21st century it is easier than ever before to quickly and succinctly make the voter aware of the two campaigns. This point is knocked down. Rebuttal XI: "Give the majority what it wants - NO political participation at all. "Oh, so Opposition is socialist after all. Besides this point (do we really want to start debating democracy versus dictatorship? I only have 2,368 characters remaining and we don't have enough rounds), we don't believe that the majority want no participation at all; they just want it in different ways because they've lost faith in elected official. More and more people are protesting, pressure group membership is increasing, and more people than ever are standing for election. Rebuttal XII: "We could well see the death penalty brought back into the UK. "Whilst I agree with you that this would be catastrophic, if the public want it, then politicians are in no place to simply tell the public they're wrong. Politicians serve to enact the will of the public, not the other way round. Summary of RebuttalWe believe that we have knocked over both of Opposition's two substantives, both in their own right but also on the basis that they serve principally to point out potential flaws with democracy. Given that this debate assumes a democratic state, we believe they are not within the bounds of this debate. Substantive III: They resolve differences between parties and parliamentary deadlockIf we look at the example of the 1973 European Community referendum, the referendum was key for making a decision when the parties in Parliament were unsure what to do and could not come to an agreement as to whether or not the UK should be a part of the European Community. Likewise with electoral reform, leading to the referendum on the Alternative Vote in 2011 (although the Proposition would argue that, to give the voters more choice, multiple choices should have been presented to the electorate). When parties are divided on an issue, be it divided against each other, divided within each other or both, we believe that the best thing to do is to allow the public to have the casting vote, as opposed to simply having parliamentary deadlock. For this reason we would advocate the increased use of referendums. Summary of the Third Speech for the PropositionWe have demonstrated the problems with Opposition's arguments. We have shown that Opposition's arguments are more criticisms of democracy, and not of referendums. We have contributed a further substantive in favour of referendums. For all these reasons, we urge you to Vote Pro! Back to Opposition, for their next speech. [1] . http://www.york.ac.uk... |
19 | 48d10dab-2019-04-18T17:25:56Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | gay marriage gay marriage should be legal |
11 | 917a6a48-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00016-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | 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. |
18 | 68240a5c-2019-04-18T12:13:04Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed I never said that bombing every church in America and telling them the truth traumatizes children, All I said is that churches should be bombed and children should be honored, That's all. Truth does not traumatize children It just doesn't! |
21 | b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Tempartures are dropping:http://www.newsmax.com...How can the world be heating up if it is warming up? And why is Antartic Sea Ice growing?https://www.nasa.gov... |
31 | 4bb9a826-2019-04-18T16:15:51Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | soda is bad If you've been reading health magazines and websites for any length of time, you've read a litany of reasons why soda is bad for you. It's nothing but sugar water. It's devoid of any nutritional value. It leads to obesity and diabetes. But we've dug up nine other disturbing facts about what soda does to your body, whether it's the side effects of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners or ingredients that can lead to memory loss. Keep reading to find out all nine reasons you should kick soda to the curb. In the latest bad news for the soda industry, Danish researchers discovered that drinking non-diet soda leads to dramatic increases in fat buildup around your liver and your skeletal muscles, both of which can contribute to insulin resistance and diabetes. The study revealed that people who drank a regular soda every day for six months saw a 132 to 142 percent increase in liver fat, a 117 to 221 percent jump in skeletal fat, and about a 30 percent increase in both triglyceride blood fats and other organ fat. Their consumption also led to an 11 percent increase in cholesterol, compared with the people who drank other beverages such as water or milk. It's not surprising that drinking all the sugar in sodas would cause weight gain, but what is surprising is that even diet soda will pack on the pounds: Researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center monitored 475 adults for 10 years, and found that those who drank diet soda had a 70 percent increase in waist circumference over the 10-year study, compared with those who didn't drink any soda. Those who drank more than two diet sodas per day saw a 500 percent waist expansion! A separate study the same researchers conducted on mice suggested that it was the aspartame, which raised blood glucose levels, that caused the weight gain; when your liver encounters too much glucose, the excess is converted to body fat. In 2011, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban the artificial caramel coloring used to make Coke, Pepsi, and other colas brown. The reason: Two contaminants in the coloring, 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole, have been found to cause cancer in animals, a threat the group says is unnecessary, considering that the coloring is purely cosmetic. According to California's strict Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, just 16 micrograms per person per day of 4-methylimidazole is enough to pose a cancer threat, and most popular brown colas, both diet and regular, contain 200 micrograms per 20-ounce bottle. Diet or regular, all colas contain phosphates, or phosphoric acid, a weak acid that gives colas their tangy flavor and improves their shelf life. Although it exists in many whole foods, such as meat, dairy, and nuts, too much phosphoric acid can lead to heart and kidney problems, muscle loss, and osteoporosis, and one study suggests it could trigger accelerated aging. The study, published in a 2010 issue of the FASEB Journal, found that the excessive phosphate levels found in sodas caused lab rats to die a full five weeks earlier than the rats whose diets had more normal phosphate levels"a disturbing trend considering that soda manufacturers have been increasing the levels of phosphoric acid in their products over the past few decades. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas don't break down in our bodies, nor do wastewater-treatment plants catch them before they enter waterways, researchers have found. In 2009, Swiss scientists tested water samples from wastewater-treatment plants, rivers and lakes in Switzerland and detected levels of acesulfame K, sucralose, and saccharin, all of which are, or have been, used in diet sodas. A recent test of 19 municipal water supplies in the U.S. revealed the presence of sucralose in every one. It's not clear yet what these low levels are doing to people, but past research has found that sucralose in rivers and lakes interferes with some organisms' feeding habits. Dentists have a name for the condition they see in kids who drink too much Mountain Dew. They wind up with a "Mountain Dew Mouth," full of cavities caused by the drink's excessive sugar levels. "Mountain Dew Mind" may be the next medical condition that gets named after the stuff. An ingredient called brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, added to prevent the flavoring from separating from the drink, is an industrial chemical used as a flame retardant in plastics. Also found in other citrus-based soft drinks and sports drinks, the chemical has been known to cause memory loss and nerve disorders when consumed in large quantities. Researchers also suspect that, like brominated flame retardants used in furniture foam, the chemical builds up in body fat, possibly causing behavioral problems, infertility, and lesions on heart muscles over time. It's not just the soda that's causing all the problems. Nearly all aluminum soda cans are lined with an epoxy resin called bisphenol A (BPA), used to keep the acids in soda from reacting with the metal. BPA is known to interfere with hormones, and has been linked to everything from infertility to obesity and diabetes and some forms of reproductive cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have pegged soda cans, along with restaurant, school, and fast-food meals, as a major source of exposure to the chemical. And while Pepsi and Coke are currently locked in a battle to see which company can be the first to develop a 100 percent plant-based-plastic bottle"which they're touting as "BPA free""neither company is willing to switch to BPA-free aluminum cans. Take a look at the ingredients list for any soda and chances are most of those ingredients are derived from corn. As much as 88 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified to resist toxic pesticides or engineered to create pesticides within the plant itself. Thanks to lax government safety regulations, and tight corporate control over who gets to test these proprietary seeds, there are no human studies that can prove or disprove whether these crops are safe. Independent scientists have found that, in animals, genetically modified crops, or GMOs, are linked to digestive tract damage, accelerated aging, and even infertility. Most recently, scientists in France found that rats fed GMO corn for their entire two-year lifespan developed mammary tumors and died earlier than rats that ate non-GMO corn their entire lives. Sugar sweetened beverage consumption has increased significantly over the past several decades. Recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data found that half of the U.S. population consumes at least one sugar sweetened beverage on any given day. Men consume on average 178 calories per day from sugar sweetened beverages and women consume 103 calories per day. Of particular concern in light of the current childhood obesity epidemic is the increased use in children, especially teens and young adults. Soda often displaces more healthful items in the diet and is a warning sign of a poor quality diet. The dangers of soda extend beyond the increase in calories, although this is likely an important contributor to weight gain and obesity. Calories consumed in liquid form do not satisfy hunger as effectively as calories consumed in solid food form, so people often consume more total calories, which can lead to weight gain. In addition, consuming large amounts of rapidly digested sugar and high fructose corn syrup causes a spike in blood sugar and insulin, which can lead to inflammation and insulin resistance, both of which may increase your risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer. The large doses of fructose from both sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup may be particularly detrimental to your health as they can cause the accumulation of metabolically toxic belly fat, cholesterol abnormalities -- including high triglycerides and reduced levels of HDL (good cholesterol) -- and nonalcoholic associated fatty liver disease. Soda is also associated with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, when the contents of the stomach leak back up and cause a burning sensation in the esophagus. While drinking soda is not known to cause ulcers, it can cause symptoms to flare up. The American Heart Association recommends consuming no more than 450 calories from sugar sweetened beverages per week (the amount in three cans of cola). If you are overweight or obese, or at risk for heart disease or diabetes, you should limit your intake of sugar sweetened beverages as much as possible, including soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks and sweetened water and/or tea. Scientists at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the Columbia University Medical Center examined the risk of vascular events in relationship to consumption of both regular and diet soft drinks. Many people drink diet soft drinks because of the lack of sugar and calories, but in this study researchers determined diet soft drinks bring a much higher risk for stroke, heart attack, and other types of vascular-related death. The study included over 2,500 men who were tracked for a ten-year period. Participants who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were 43% more likely to experience a vascular event. People who drank only small amounts of diet soft drinks or who drank regular soft drinks were not likely to experience these heart troubles. In a separate study, from the University of Adelaide, scientists found a link between asthma and COPD and high levels of soft drink intake. In this study over 16,000 people were interviewed over a two-year period. |
34 | 5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00005-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are harmful. Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. "Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'. |
5 | 8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security Due to the fact my opponent's account has been closed, this debate is null. I please ask you not to vote. |
38 | 174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00005-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana We agree on all definitions so let's now move onto the case. C1: Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits. If need be, I could potentially use all my space going on about the medical benefits of marijuana and how marijuana can benefit us however I'll provide three different benefits today. Sub-Point A: Alzheimer's Disease (Thanks Danielle! ) Lisa M. Eubanks, PhD, Staff Scientist at the Scripps Research Institute and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology notes, "THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease [by] simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease" [1] Since the characterization of the Cannabis sativa produced cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol in the 1960s, this natural product has been widely explored as an antiemetic, anticonvulsive, anti-inflammatory, and analdebilitating disease are critical as Alzheimer's disease afflicts over 20 million people worldwide, with the number of diagnosed cases continuing to rise at an exponential rate [2]. These studies have demonstrated the ability of cannabinoids to provide neuroprotection against amyloid peptide toxicity. [3] Thus we see that medical marijuana provides plausible assistance with a prevalent disease, Alzheimer's Disease. Sub-Point B- HIV/AIDS Numerous studies have shown that medical marijuana has benefited AIDS. While I urge the readers to do some research on their own, I'll summarize some of the results of experimentation. "The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy. There are no drugs specifically approved to treat that kind of pain. Three times daily for nearly a week, the patients smoked marijuana cigarettes machine-rolled at the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the only legal source for the drug recognized by the federal government. Half the patients received marijuana, while the other 25 received placebo cigarettes that lacked the drug's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Scientists said the study was the first one published that used a comparison group, which is generally considered the gold standard for scientific research. Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale. " [4] Investigators at Columbia University published clinical trial data in 2007 showing that HIV/AIDS patients who inhaled cannabis four times daily experienced substantial increases in food intake with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. They concluded that smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive patients. [5] In another study in 2008, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that marijuana significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a patient's already-prescribed pain management regimen and may be an "effective option for pain relief" in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications. Mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly during study treatment. [6]Medical Marijuana also has numerous ways to help treat HIV/AIDS, yet another epidemic in today's society. Sub-Point C: Cancer According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body. [7] A study by Complutense University of Madrid found the chemicals in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy. The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Usingelectron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. [8] Cannabis has been found to help cancer patients with pain and nausea, and recent research indicates it has tumor-reducing and anti-carcinogenic properties properties as well. It has proven highly effective at controlling the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and its appetite-stimulation properties help combat wasting. Cannabis can also help control the pain associated with some cancers, as well as that resulting from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. [9]Finally, we can come to the conclusion that Medical Marijuana can help cure cancer. When we look back, I have provided three benefits for three prevalent diseases: Alzheimer's Disease, HIV/AIDS, as well as cancer. I could go on and on discussing mental disorder benefits as well as Glaucoma, but I don't want to bore the readers and I urge them to do some of their own research. C2: The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide. This whole issue comes down to simply whether or not medical marijuana should be prescribed by doctors. The federal government should not have its say in determining whether or not the doctors can prescribe the marijuana or not. We should allow the experienced doctors to determine whether or not a patient should receive marijuana, not the federal government. Thus, when we look onto the doctor's opinions we see doctors believe it should be prescribed. According to the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog: The American College of Physicians, 124,000 members strong, has issued a 13-page position paper asking the federal government to drop marijuana from its classification as a substance considered to have no medicinal value and a high chance of abuse . . . "They've said essentially that the federal government has it all wrong," Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, [says]. [10] Along with this association, numerous doctors and individuals believe that medical marijuana should be prescribed. At the point at which the competent individuals and the ones who spend their whole entire lives working in the field of medicine believe it should be prescribed, why would the federal government have any say? I can provide more sources and more examples but I think when you look at what I have provided throughout all the sources (most from doctors) you can come to the conclusion that doctors believe it is a necessity and obligatory to legalize medical marijuana. Conclusion: Medical marijuana has been empirically proven to benefit diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Many doctors want to legalize marijuana and the experienced doctors should decide whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, not a governing body. Let the decision rest upon the individuals who spend their lives working in the field of medicine, not those who do not have enough knowledge on the topic. By letting this occur, we see many doctors are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana and it would have enormous positive impacts on today's society and well-being. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote. See . http://www.debate.org... sources. |
9 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | 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 |
45 | 5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: . http://www.debate.org.... Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :) I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued. No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of "discontinued"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament. Onto case: 1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources. a. For all its use within the American economy (i. e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U. S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U. S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U. S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U. S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending. In times like these, with a global recession, a U. S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U. S. b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U. S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions. If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U. S. (i. e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U. S. "pays" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value. Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, "perfect-storm-esque" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year. 2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U. S. As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world. But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U. S. The other major bidders are all out of the country. We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U. S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses? In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny. [1] . http://www.retirethepenny.org... [2] . http://abcnews.go.com... [3] . http://www.mapsofworld.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com... |
11 | ad998274-2019-04-18T12:30:10Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | HOF Players that used Steroids Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations. |
34 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | 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 |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00007-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | A two-state solution is best for peace Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: "Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature."(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel's leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: "I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders."(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, "The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages."(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution. |
17 | 14b9fbff-2019-04-18T12:11:41Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use. It is not good for the body or for society. Legalizing it for recreational use would greatly endanger communities, and I feel that the idea of legalizing it is foolish. |
34 | 6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are good for our society! I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument. |
8 | a149e8-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | In the United States, burning the American flag should be legal. KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KfC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour In round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON's statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) "Provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers." [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage "one of the best antipoverty programs we have.". [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: "poverty guidelines" and "poverty thresholds" [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in "48 Contiguous States and D.C." is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: "Last year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - "I'd argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session — and probably in the four years I've been health commissioner" [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study "in APHA's American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth." [3] A "higher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid — the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share." There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON's statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living "Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular." CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes "we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state." [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca... |
6 | bc12e6a4-2019-04-18T17:08:40Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Life is worth living My opponent is correct, I cannot show that every life is worth living. I am ceding this debate. |
38 | 174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana My condolences to my opponent for whatever has rendered him unable to post an argument. However, thus far, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence, has failed to validly defend my attacks upon his case, and has made no attacks on my case. He has failed to prove that the pros of legalizing marijuana outweigh the benefits of the status quo, which works to solve virtually all problems posed by my opponent while additionally keeping society free from the dangers of increased distribution of marijuana for recreational purposes. Taking this into account, the only logical vote is a vote for Con. Thank you. |
26 | 9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Test Hello. I am glad to be debating with you. Let me start off by saying that I grew up in a household who's income was in education, so I do know what testing can do to both teachers, parents, and students alike. What is the effect of testing on teachers? First, testing puts an unfair amount of pressure on educators. They fear that if their students' test results are poor, that they themselves will be blamed for it. This is why teachers are often very conservative with their teaching in the classroom - they know that fun and games will not be what the final exams are made up of. So, they hold back from doing things exciting in the classroom, that have the potential to really educate students - and, instead, do bookwork and other such work because this is really what the tests are. No fun and games. Also, testing causes teachers to rush with their teaching. Instead of taking time to really educate the students, they hurry to teach everything that may be included on these tests. They don't spend quality time educating their students; instead, they rush to make certain that everything on tests has been - somewhat - taught. So which is better - students who really understand what they are doing, or students who somewhat get the subject they are being taught and just barely pass - or fail - tests? What effect do tests have on parents? Testing doesn't have as big an effect on parents, but it can cause them to have anxiety. They realize that their child is bright; however, they failed the final exam in one class - but made acceptable grades in this class throughout the year. The only reason that the child failed is because he/she has a slight fear of tests, and this anxiety caused he/she not to do so hot. Parents are then caught up in this mess; do I let my child go on, or must I hold them back another year? I believe that testing puts an unfair amount of anxiety on parents of both smart and not-so-smart children. What effect do tests have on students? The big one. First, phobia of tests is at high numbers in the student population. These students fear the results they may get back in the mail: did I exceed, or meet, or fail? I believe that testing does not show true student records. They may have been bright in that one particular class, but fail the test due to anxiety or other such factors. And, another thing: outside factors, such as one's home life, parents, etc. may have a huge impact on how students do on tests. Say that a student's parents are in the midst of a divorce, and the final exams are about to occur. Say that on the morning of the exam, this student's father hit his mother and drove away; the student may never see his father again. Do you honestly believe that this student is going to give as much effort on a test as other students who's home situation is fine? No; and if it were me, I could care less about taking a test. So, in my opinion, testing puts an unfair amount of anxiety on teachers, parents, and students alike. Teachers may not teach their subjects wholly. Parents may fear the first of their child and get caught up in the midst of an emotional situation: do I allow my child to go on, or must I hold them back? And students may have testing anxiety, or may experience other outside factors that are affecting them poorly on tests. Testing does not show true student ability. I am against testing; I have seen the effect it can have on everyone - teachers, parents, and students alike. |
7 | 66bd9166-2019-04-18T15:23:39Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Human-Emitted Greenhouse GasesIt is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [1]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [2][3]This excess CO2 traps heat. Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. [4]"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[5][6]CO2 correlates with temperature. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[7]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[8]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Indeed, it would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[9][10]This graph shows this: [5]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[5][11]This can be shown in the below graph: [5]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[12]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [13]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [14]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [15]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
1 | 87718a55-2019-04-18T18:06:51Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should God be taken completely out of school Thank you for the response and right away I would like to point out your statements, "there are other and superior ways of obtaining theology information..."While yes your right that most churches have an open door policy of letting anyone in to observe and learn about there church and there ways, and anyone would could learn more about the religion directly by going to one of these churches, does not mean that kids in school today will just randomly come upon one of these churches and go in and decide to learn about the religion that the church follows because he/she doesn't necessarily know what that church follows or believes, kids today don't learn about Christianity, Hinduism, etc. because there not taught anything about the different religions. Not by there schools, not by their parents, not by anyone. So they go on everyday not knowing about these different religions that they may or may not agree with and that takes out a big part in someones life, what he/she believes in. I would also like to touch on one of your points (#1) that schools have limited resources. While yes, they do, they also misuse those resources a lot. My school in particular, has had roof problems for the past 4 years and the repairs have yes to be fixed, while just three months ago the seats in the Gym were replaced even though there wasn't much wrong with the old ones. you see, schools are given so much by the government and most people know that, but the schools will misuse funds on things that don't even need to be touched on, it's like (I don't know where you live exactly) the construction in Ohio, Ohio had gotten a huge salary from the federal government for construction jobs all over the state .................................................Ohio didn't even really need construction jobs because they were already done a few years back! your next point (#2). I tend to disagree, If you haven't noticed, religion has something to do with everyday life. When people go to elect a president like in the upcoming election, they want to know what they feel about certain things, what they plan to do, and what they believe, Weather people like you or not for what you believe it affects you everyday, If we lived in a world where Muslims were at the top (just using this as an example not an act of slander) and two people worked for a Muslim who was the head of a company. One man is also a Muslim, while the other is a Christian, (not saying this will be the case every time because it depends on the head Muslims character) would it not be more likely that the other Muslim would get a promotion instead of the Christian just because the boss and the worker shared the same religion? now, I'm not saying this is right but sadly it is how the world works today, If your in charge and someone agrees with you, you push them up, but if someone dose not agree with you, they get pushed down and that's not how it should be. Its also like resumes for small and large companies or like the census, they ask you your religion so they can know everything about you. your last point (#3). This refers back to my first point on how the person them self should decide what he/she believes out of what he/she is taught. I have my beliefs today, but that's because I learned about many different religions and picked the one that made the most sense to me and I still learn today, and everyday I learn new things that make my religion stronger for myself. Thank you for taking the time to read my response and I look forward to yours. |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned thank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO |
49 | df1f2018-2019-04-18T18:34:37Z-00003-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | War should be mandatory My opponent has indeed presented a strong opening, and I will present my counter arguments. I also thank my opponent for narrowing down the scope of the debate considerably, instead of wasting our time arguing over the inevitability of war. As a rebuttal to my arguments my opponent has pointed out certain flaws in my proposal and has raised 5 points. I'll address those points out of sequence. But before addressing them, I'd like to make some things clear, which my opponent seems to have misunderstood. My opponent thinks that: Nations will have to go to war with randomly picked countries. Wars will be fought in city streets and in areas where the populace will be affected. I state that this was never the intention. As I stressed often in my opening arguments, everything will be fixed by pre-arrangement. If such is the case, why would countries choose to fight wars in heavily populated areas, critical locations and such? Countries will have an option of choosing whichever nation they want to go to war against. It depends upon what a nation wants. If it wants a certain resource, it can go to war against a country that has that resource. There's nothing random in this. Also, as I said, the time periods between wars can be fixed. As an example, the time period could be a generation. Thus, every generation will have faced a war in their times. This is supposedly character-building. [1] I'll now proceed with my points. 1. It will cause intellectual chaos. As wars ARE going on in the world every year, does my opponent think there is intellectual chaos right now? My opponent also thinks that wars will be fought between random countries, and as I said, this is not the case. The population only has to get along with the decision of whom to fight, as under my proposal war is mandatory. Nobody has to convince the population to go to war, it's just which country to go to war against. Maybe one party wants to fight Eritrea, while the other thinks Indonesia is where the booty is, to put it flippantly. To give examples, World War 1 had no real underpinning reason to it. Did the population need to be re-educated and all the things my opponent says? Did it destroy the foundations of logic, etc.? The losing nations (or at least Germany) emerged stronger in less than a decade and in fact made giants leaps in technology, so much so that they regained much more than they lost in the previous war (at least for a time). 2. It will cause social disruption My opponent has given examples of certain countries that have avoided wars for generations. Japan, it seems, has not engaged in warfare for almost 70 years. Well, if that's the case, why then is Japan currently the fourth in the list of defense spending budgets by country? [2] Since, irrespective of the lack of warfare, Japan IS expending resources in training people to ready for war without causing any social disruption, my opponents argument that this expenditure will cause social disruption is unfounded Also, as wars will be fought in pre-decided locations, the peaceful population will not have to see the horrors of war, unless they wish to. They just need to know that a war is going on in their country, and they will be required to contribute to the war effort. Moreover, my opponent is not taking into consideration the civilian lives my proposal will save. As wars are fixed, only soldiers will participate in it. The civilian death toll will be zero. This will in fact reduce social disruption by limiting wars to military personnel. 3. It will cause political dysfunction As my opponent said, international politics is a delicate game of power. But when played well, it's always the people of the non-developed countries that get the raw end of the deal. To cite an example, such a well played game between the developed countries and the Libyan president, ensured that trade went on smoothly, without any concern for whether the money is actually going to the Libyan people. The diplomats just want to ensure that their country gets the resources with the least amount of expenditure. This is a bad deal for the Libyan people. Well, you can argue that the Libyans should have done something to prevent a tyrant from assuming leadership, but that's beside the point. This game is heavily loaded in favor of the advanced countries, who have the money, the knowledge and the expertise, without going into seeing how they actually managed to gain all these. If my opponent wants alliances and friendships to be taken into account, by all means. Wars can be fought between multiple allied countries on both sides. How my proposal will improve things? Since war is mandatory, a leader has no option but to treat his people fairly, so that they will do their utmost to help the war effort. Nothing disposes a leader as quickly as a lost war. Of course, care has to be taken to see that the leaaders are not cheating or conspiring with opposition leaders, but all these things are necessities of my proposal. 4. It will cause economic ruin. As we have seen, countries that have not fought wars in generations are still spending a lot in defense. I fail to understand how fixing everything, so that you know beforehand how much you will need to spend (to a reasonable extent) and damages with regards to environment, civiilian life and society limited to the utmost; will be a cause for economic ruin. The current scenario, where a country always has to be prepared for an attack, especially if surrounded by unstable countries (like India/Pakistan or S/N Korea) as well as the never ending hunt for resources and their smooth deployment causing countries like the US to station troops in places far removed from their soil, and engage in wars against things like terrorism, etc. will cause economic ruin faster. So, instead of the way my opponent stacks up examples of how bullet casings lost, destroyers sunk, fuel consumed etc. could have been put to further use, I can simply respond by saying the same thing in this manner, viz. every bullet casing made, every destroyer built, every single drop of fuel reserved for military vehicles for generations with the sole intention of NEVER using them, as in the case of Japan, could very well have been used for highrises and circuits and what not. Also, soldiers volunteer for wars under my proposal (because they are highly paid, and it's also a matter of prestige), so the loss of their lives is not something for us to worry about. The loss of civilians in the current scenario however, is something that should worry everybody. Some of the countries that don't spend much in defense do so because their defense is subsidized by some other country, but ultimately, the cost is being paid. My opponent raises points about investments, loans, etc. But I fail to see how such things will be affected unduly. Investors will know exactly when a war will be fought, and what all could be lost. It's also not like a war will be fought every other week and on critical parts of the country. I'd take this over any kind of uncertainty related to war. Nothing is simple in economics, but the removal of uncertainty plays a huge factor in economic stability (I think I can get away with this statement without linking sources?) 5. There is no method of enforcement. Well, yeah. A method would have to be found out. All the countries need to create something like the United Warring Nations. But is my opponent saying that if a method is found out, my proposal will become valid? Let us first debate the validity of the proposal before working out details in enforcing it. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] http://www.globalfirepower.com... |
16 | c5e70a48-2019-04-18T18:53:35Z-00002-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drugs should be legalized in the United States 1. Drug Use A. Deterrence Con acknowledges that the criminalization of drugs isn't a deterrence for most people. Why implement a counter-productive policy that's ineffective by my opponent's own admission? Next Con notes that his statistic isn't referring only to HS seniors but those aged 12 - 17. My point still stands considering it's limiting the statistic to those no older than 17, when many people don't smoke pot until after HS. Nevertheless I concede my mistake; I also provided the statistic for HS seniors (Con's mistake confused me). However, my point still stands with the right general figure. My argument was that harsher penalties do not necessarily lead to a decrease in drug abuse. Con mentioned that harsher punishments for marijuana crimes were enacted in 1992. A NESARC study of over 43,000 people found "Overall, marijuana abuse or dependence rose by 22 percent from 1992 to 2002" [33]. Con then advocates "dropping my source" since it's "heavily predicated on teens voluntarily reporting marijuana use." By that logic, you should also drop Con's entire argument and all of his statistics pertaining to teenage marijuana use. Since that's the only demographic he's talked about thus far, that would be ALL of his statistics (reminder: he cannot make any new arguments in the last round considering I cannot respond). B. Availability Con's argument was that higher availability of drugs would result in a plethora of problems. On the contrary I provided evidence that legalizing drugs in other places led to less crime, violence, disease and death as a result of these policies. Con did not respond to this, and instead mentioned that only those over 25 received free heroin from the government, etc. That might be true, but has nothing to do with my point: that just because legal drugs are available doesn't mean society will come crashing down. In fact many see positive results. I never said that we shouldn't implement policies in a similar fashion to the other successful models I mentioned, so Con's rebuttal is negated. 2. Impacts A. Financial Burden First, I pointed out that we live in a country which socializes costs. Welfare recipients are also a financial burden yet are still entitled to their personal liberties just as drug users are despite their burden. Second, get rid of socialized medicine and this problem becomes obsolete. Third, you can heavily tax drugs to compensate for the cost, just as the government does with cigarettes for the same reason [34]. Moreover, Con tries to downplay my point insisting that more people get sick from drugs than anything else. However, the number one leading cause of death in the U.S. is heart disease [35]. Over 34% of Americans are overweight and more than 33% are obese [36]. This means that people's personal choices very much pertain to their medical needs, and the system does not discriminate. You can either rectify the system to where this burden isn't an issue, or you can acknowledge that it's not problematic to our current system. Finally and most important on this point, Con completely ignored the argument from economist Jeffrey Miron that legalizing drugs would inject 78.6 billion dollars into the U.S. economy. B. Hurting Families Extend my arguments; this has nothing to do with the government. C. Work Productivity Con never details what specific illegal drugs the statistic is referring to so extend that point. Also extend my point that an employer can fire a bad employee or one in violation of their contract. D. Harm I mentioned that the government cannot restrict personal liberties on the basis that people MIGHT abuse them. Con says the government should take protective measures to ensure they don't cause harm to begin with. By that logic, we should criminalize knives because people MIGHT use one to commit a crime. It's obvious we cannot run a functional legal system that way. Con never argued against my point and instead just stated his counter-point - not why his point is preferable. There's nothing for me to respond to. 3. Role of Government Con says the govt. should interfere because of the financial and harmful burden drug users place on society. Extend my 2A - 2C points. 4. Impact of the WOD A. The WOD Term Con says he would not advocate a WOD. In other words he would do nothing to prevent the growing, transport, use, confiscation or penalty for drugs? That's what the WOD refers to. Now I can use Con's own arguments against him. In point 1A he talked about the importance of deterrence. How can he push deterrence as an important facet of criminalizing drugs, but suggest he'd make no effort to wage a war on drugs to deter use? At best this is a hypocritical contention depicting flawed reasoning on my opponent's part; at worst it's a completely useless objection that doesn't pertain to my arguments. B. Black Market Con completely drops this huge contention of mine despite me repeating it several times in a cohesive manner. It's unfair to have to waste character space explaining it again. Please extend all of my arguments, particularly the quote by source 24 from the last round. The gist of it is that a black market exists for drugs due to prohibition that creates devastating repercussions. Such a market would not exist to anywhere near this extent if drugs were decriminalized. Con's response has been that a market would exist for underage users (which I explained is pretty insignificant), and that "the cartels have access to over half of the market even if you affirm." I have no idea what this is referring to or why there would be cartels in the first place; Con hasn't explained as such. Con also dropped my point about the CIA/govt. corruption. C. Drug Rates N/A D. Kids and Prison Extend my argument about drug use not violating other people's rights directly. Not only is Con's "taxation without representation" argument not pertinent, but we DO have government representation (even if it's crappy). Also, Con's counter-example ones again mentions stealing which I've explained repeatedly is a violation of another's right to their property. E. Racism Con repeats that racism exists all over the justice system. I concur, but explained that drug policy in particular goes out of its way to disenfranchise a particular race by focusing on particular suspects and communities in a significantly disproportionate way. This is particularly pertinent due to the fact that once again drug use is a victimless "crime" unlike other offenses. F. Medical Benefits First, you'll notice that Con never denied any of the medical uses I've cited and sourced as being proven to work. Instead, he presents possible side effects or negatives of using certain drugs. This is no different then how every single legal drug advertised on television comes with an extensive list of possible negative side-effects. Still they're proven to have possible positive uses just as illegal drugs can, which means Con's rebuttal negates nothing. I can also provide more proof of positive medical uses [37, 38, 39, 40]. Further, scientists have ranked the most dangerous drugs based on harm to self and harm on others. Alcohol which is legal scored as the most dangerous drug - even above heroin and crack [41]. Professor David Nutt, Britain's former chief drug policy adviser reports that riding a horse is more dangerous than taking ecstasy [42]. Con says my links proving exaggerated dangers of drugs are broken; every single one of them works for me. Con also attributes a false contradiction to me regarding heroin's addictiveness. Finally, he says people can go to rehab for heroin even with drugs criminalized. My point was that rehabilitation is more important and useful than prison; people should be treated like addicts and not criminals when addressing their drug problem. Thanks for this debate, Con. Sources: http://www.debate.org... |
26 | 375fc61d-2019-04-18T13:54:50Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr 1. Yes being a mixed school can help test scores rise but just because you're a mixed school doesn't mean that your test scores will rise a lot 2. To get into a charter school, it's a lottery and I don't know why, maybe if they aren't applying or if they aren't just getting in but the ESL students aren't going to these charter schools 3. All the poor kids live in poor neighborhoods so there school doesn't get enough money. That being said they're at a disadvantage because they don't get the proper equipment and their education isn't as good |
28 | f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00007-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized I am starting this debate again because last time my opponent forfeited every turn. Please comment first if you are willing to make this a legitimate debate. Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4. |
5 | 8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security Due to the fact my opponent's account has been closed, this debate is null. I please ask you not to vote. |
12 | 6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Public Funded Birth Control I will start off by saying that publicly funded would be beneficial to society as a whole since it would 1. Save Money. The reason it would save money is because less welfare children would be born since the lower socio-economic groups would have access to birth control. Since there would be less welfare children born, the state would not have to spend on much on welfare as they currently do. 2. Less abortions. Since all people would have access to birth control, the amount of unintended pregnancies would drop. With less unintended pregnancies, there would be a correlating effect to less abortions. 3. Good for the Environment. With slower population growth, society as a whole would become more sustainable and put less strain on the environment. 4. Good for the economy. With all the money saved from having to spend on birth control, people could spend money on other items or services (or better yet save money) which would have a positive effect on the nation. With positive economic, social, and environmental consequences, it seems unreasonable to argue that It would have a negative effect compared to the current status qua of not having birth control publicly funded. |
28 | cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal View on prostitutes Opponents of legalization often depict prostitutes as helpless victims forced into prostitution at a young age. This view is exemplified by the column [5] that my opponent cites. I cite from that same article: "Prostitution turns women into lumps of meat that are bought and sold for the sexual gratification of men." The author is disgusted by prostitution, and sees prostitutes as helpless, pathetic "lumps of meat". Needless to say, that this is not how prostitutes would like to be seen. Most prostitutes chose their profession. The job usually earns them more money than any other job they can do. They often need money to pay for household expenses, or to pay for education etc. Making prostitution takes away their livelihood. To get an idea who these prostitutes are it is insightful to read the following survey of prostitutes in New Zealand. http://www.otago.ac.nz... 772 sex workers were interviewed. Some highlights: 73% of the prostitutes entered the profession for financial reasons. 82% of them were at least 18 when they entered the profession (contradicting the claim of my opponent that most of them entered the profession between 14 and 16), 3% has been raped by a client. 77.8% reported always using a condom. Prostitution is legal in New Zealand after the Prostitution Reform Act. Prostitutes have legal rights in NZ and they are well aware of it. The German experiment My opponent used his citation [8] for his argument that legalization in Germany did not work. This citation starts with: "Das Prostitutionsgesetz läuft weitgehend ins Leere, besagt die erste offizielle Studie über seine Wirkung. Schuld sei vor allem die Halbherzigkeit des Gesetzes." My translation (the link for the Google translation did not work for me): "The prostitution law does not work, says the first official study about its effect. The primary reason is that the law is half-hearted." So although the article says (in 2007, 5 years after the introduction of the law) that the law had not yet worked, it says that the main reason is that the law does not go far enough! The goal of the law was to recognize prostitution. 85.5% of the prostitutes welcomed the law as a first step towards recognition. Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws. "Die Autorinnen empfehlen deshalb, die Entkriminalisierung der Prostitution weiter voranzutreiben. Sie raten vor allem, das Gewerbe mit einer Art Lizenz auszustatten. Diese sollten Betriebe und Huren erhalten, die gute Arbeitsbedingungen bieten und legal arbeiten." My translation: The authors [of the study] recommend a continuation of the decriminalization of prostitution. In particular, they recommend the creation of some kind of license for the profession. These licenses will be given to brothels and hookers who work legally and have good working conditions. Risks of prostitution Prostitution, like some other professions such as law enforcement, fire fighter, is not without risks. But these risks easily can be exaggerated. My opponent goes on at length on the "risks of promiscuity". The risk of STD's can be reduced to a minimum by using condoms. Most prostitutes (77.8%) always use condoms, and the remaining prostitutes probably use them most of the time. Prostitutes (like fire fighters) should wear their protective gear to be safe at their jobs. The idea of legalization is to give licenses only to prostitutes who do their work safely. Prostitution and sex trafficking There is no convincing evidence that legalization of prostitution leads to an increase of sex trafficking. Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally, even after legalization of prostitution. The study [10] that my opponent cites is not very convincing. It is based on many assumptions and poor empirical data. They write: "As pointed out already, this means we cannot control for unobserved country heterogeneity. Also, while we have established that the legalized status of prostitution is associated with a higher incidence of trafficking inflows, a cross-sectional analysis cannot provide a conclusion as to whether legalizing prostitution would result in increased trafficking after legalization." A lot of studies on the effect of legalization on sex trafficking has been done in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark. These countries have legalized prostitution (although in these countries, prostitution was already decriminalized to an extend before complete legalization). These studies are in the early 2000s. However, it seems to me that these studies ignore major changes with regards to borders. Since the fall of the USSR, human trafficking has increased. Many countries in the European Union joined the Schengen agreement in the 2000s. This means, that many borders between European countries have been eliminated. It is not hard to imagine, that this is having a huge impact on trafficking. It is therefore not surprising to see, that there has been an influx of sex workers from Eastern European countries into the Netherlands and Germany. I think that the war in former Yugoslavia may also be a factor. There is no convincing evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution. Prostitution and crime If prostitution is illegal, then prostitution is crime. To decouple prostitution form criminal elements, we must legalize it. Also, both in countries with legalized and not legalized prostitution, prostitutes are often forced to do their work in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates. Prostitutes should be allowed to do their profession everywhere they want (indoors). Prostitution and drugs Although there may be a correlation between drug use and prostitution, there is no convincing evidence that prostitution causes drug use. Sometimes, people enter prostitution because of drug or alcohol use. According to the NZ survey, this was 21.4%. This is not a problem of prostitution, but of drug use. With regard to drug users going into prostitution there are two options: 1)Either, we believe they are unable to make good choices for themselves. In that case they should be locked up in a rehab institution until they are no longer a danger to themselves. 2)Or, we believe that they are able to make choices for themselves. In that case, we should not take away their livelihood. |
48 | 2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them. |
44 | 790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Thanks, thett3FrameworkWhether a government is democratic isn't the only criterion for whether it is a good democracy, yet it is a factor, largely because having a democratic system is linked to increased welfare of the populace (1). I agree that the protection of individual rights and the common good are also crucial when considering what ought to be the case in a democracy.Nevertheless, this concession in no way harms my case. This is because compulsory voting doesn't violate a single individual right and it also maximises the common good due to the apparent trend where democracy is linked to the general welfare of the populace (1) (hence a more democratic system - compulsory voting - would probably increase general welfare).TurnoutCon is entirely incorrect here; he claims that I 'immediately contradict [myself] by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule'. I never said anything of the sort.He also argues that a high voter turnout isn't inherently good. Maybe so, but it is inherently democratic, and therefore it will prima facie accord with the common good. Con does say that it would have been better for the Jews to have voted more than the Nazis, but it is uncontroversial to say this because we have the benefit of hindsight. In the present day, it would be extremely bigoted to say that one group of people is less worthy of political representation in Government.Democracy should involve everyone. Even if we view someone's views as extremist or stupid, it is still democratic and better for the common good to ensure that everyone is involved. Thus I would still advocate that a high voter turnout is, prima facie, a good thing - one that compulsory voting will actualize.Con says I don't provide evidence that low-turnout elected governments are less legitimate than high-turnout elected governments. This is wrong, I did provide evidence that in a low-turnout election, it is more likely to turn out that the majority of the population didn't support the victorious government. Conversely, this is less likely to happen if we have a high voter turnout.To illustrate, we have two elections:Election 1- 60% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityElection 2- 90% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityIn election 1, only 42% of the population actually supported the Labour party. In election 2, this figure is 63%.In which election is the Labour party more legitimate? Obviously the latter because in that one, the majority of the population support them.This proves my point that a higher turnout will increase the chances that the victorious government will be legitimate. Of course, the chances of a government having majority support are much lower in a multi-party system, and yes, because of this there will be a smaller chance that the government in a multi-party system will be as legitimate as the same party in a two-party system. Nevertheless, even in a multi-party system, the increased turnout resulting from compulsory voting will still increase the chances that the winning government will be more legitimate.Having a legitimate government is both more democratic and better for the common good, since people are more likely to trust in the government and be content with their authority if they are aware that the government's authority is legitimate. For example, in the UK earlier this year, the Conservative party won the General Election with only 36.9% of the vote (2), this caused bitterness and protests, in which a common complaint was that people felt the government was illegitimate (3). In other words, a less legitimate government is more likely to result in unrest, political apathy and anti-government feeling - all symptoms of a less happy society.Tax credits could work, but they are financially inferior to my plan. I'll expand on this later.AccessibilityWhilst there are many things that would help solve the problem of inaccessibility to voting, compulsory voting is the solution that would be the most effective. If voting was compulsory, then there would be a legal mandate to help everyone to vote - after all, nobody wants to see a disabled person punished simply because he couldn't get to a polling station by himself. Because nobody wants to see that, this would place a mandate on society to assist anyone who needs it to cast their vote. This is shown in the case of Australia, which has a plethora of help and assistance available for disabled/elderly voters (4).If voting is optional, then there is an attitude of, 'why should I help this person cast their vote? It's not as if they need to vote'.National holidays are all very well, but they do cost the economy a fair bit (5) and still wouldn't help those who don't work but still struggle to leave the house. The same applies to early voting and same-day registration; all these help solve the problem, but none moreso than compulsory voting.Con claims that, if voting is compulsory, it will end up punishing the hard-working and disabled people. This would be the case if my plan wasn't accompanied by policies that would give the disabled assistance in casting their vote, to the extent that nobody should fear being on the wrong side of the law because they were unable to reach a polling station. But I advocate such policies, as does Australia - the poster-child for compulsory voting.Furthermore, if voting is compulsory then there is a mandate for employers to permit their employees the chance to vote - hence there is no worry of a hard-working person being punished because they were kept at work during election day. If this did happen to be the case, then the punishment would fall on the employer. In contrast, if voting was optional then employers have no obligation to allow their employees time to vote - after all, it's not as if they need to vote if voting is merely optional.EducationWhilst there is no empirical evidence linking compulsory voting to an increase in political knowledge, the reasoning for such a link remains cogent.Compare a compulsory voting system and an optional voting system. All else being equal, the former is more likely to prompt people to educate themselves politically. This is because of the fact that one cannot choose to isolate themselves from political involvement if voting is compulsory, whereas someone can choose to isolate themselves if voting is optional. There might not be a large difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. If someone is required to vote, then this will create a demand for education - after all, if people are required to participate in something then they will naturally want to learn about what it is they are required to participate in. To give an example, if people are required to attend a football game every year, then this will increase the level of football-knowledge because the mandatory-participation prompts people to educate themselves.Con writes that the large amount of election coverage in the media is enough to educate anyone 'through sheer osmosis'. Yet this is passive education, where you inevitably absorb some information just by exposure to it. Compulsory voting would encourage people to take an active approach and seek out political information. The latter is preferable because it avoids many of the media biases that would be exacerbated by passive political education.ExtremismCon's rebuttal here exclusively refers to the American system of primary elections, yet this debate doesn't explicitly pertain to the USA. In countries such as the UK and Australia, voting is for members of an unlimited amount of different political parties, unlike the two party system in the US. Hence Con's rebuttal doesn't harm my case here.Just to clarify, I do not think that extremists voting is a bad thing - of course I don't. I think that disproportionate representation is a bad and undemocratic thing. Because extremists are more likely to vote than moderates, this means that extremists are given representation that their number does not warrant. The moderates may have consented by refraining from voting, but this doesn't resolve the issue. The principles of democracy require equal representation.Con's counterplanTax credits may grow the economy - any government spending does. But the issue is that if government spending is given through tax credits, that spending is being redirected from more worthy projects such as schools or hospitals. Tax credits for voting would needlessly use up money that could be spent on infrastructure and housing. Whilst the counterplan may grow the economy, my plan is superior because it frees up the money so it can be spent on more worthy investments. Therefore, my plan is more economically benefitial.Undemocratic?It may be best to let other countries decide their own policies, but that is irrelevant to this debate. We are supposed to be debating whether it is preferential to have compulsory voting in a democracy, not whether we should force countries to implement it. Con's talk of 'neocolonialism' is therefore a giant strawman.RightsAs part of my plan, I would advocate that all voting mediums allow for ballots to be spoilt. Hence avoiding the accusation of violating the right no to vote. Con writes that people may be dissuaded by fear of spoiling being illlegal, but the only evidence he gives is that '"Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google'. But Google hits are no reflection on whether a query is a common one; for example, a search of 'giant strawberry gorilla hybrid' brings 489,000 hits.I do accept the Sherbet test, but Con's counterplan is arguably more intrusive than my own. By financially rewarding those who vote, the Government is effectively punishing people for not voting. It's like if people were given tax credits to work on Sundays, this would feel like a punishment to those Christians who believe that we shouldn't violate the Sabbath._____(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://bit.ly...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly... |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.