query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
21 | 842a72c1-2019-04-18T16:57:36Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate Shift I am confused by my opponents argument. He has taken the Con side and must disagree and disprove the resolution, but his argument is only in favor of the pro. I must assume that he is being sarcastic, but I am not sure.Pros CasePoint A: Climate shift is realSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by HumanitySub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus.Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift.Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity.Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow.Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level.Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment.There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.-Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.-Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.-Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.-Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift.Sources1. http://www.sciencemag.org...2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. http://www.nrdc.org...4. http://www.mfpp.org...5. http://www.edf.org...6. http://climate.nasa.gov...7. http://climate.nasa.gov...8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. http://www.usatoday.com...10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...11. http://climate.nasa.gov... |
11 | 21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. "Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal"examples." (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. "Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells." (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. "The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women." (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. "Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits." (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs. |
16 | 9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00009-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be decriminalised In addition to our first argument: There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive |
50 | aad1c75f-2019-04-18T19:33:31Z-00004-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators ==== "My studies 'vs' my opponent's" Note that our studies do not conflict in any way. My opponent showed in R1 that biphasics were superior to monophasics, a fact I've never denied. I've shown that triphasics are superior to both monophasics and biphasics, and that converting biphasics to triphasics is a simple firmware update away. My opponent explains that only monophasics and biphasics are 'commercially available in hospitals.' First, unless there is a market set up inside of most hospitals, that is not true. The only units available in hospitals are units that are currently there. But then, we're not talking about what the hospitals can use IMMEDIATELY. We're talking about what they _should_ use moving forward. Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I could be on my advocacy. I will list out all the points in my advocacy. 1. FDA should allow use of triphasics and/or quadriphasics immediately, since they are superior. 2. All biphasics that can be converted to triphasics or quadriphasics via firmware updates should be updated as such. 3. Manufacturers who produce biphasics should stop immediately, due to their superiority with little to no additional manufacturing cost. 4. The market should then be allowed to run its course. Newly converted or newly manufactured triphasics or quadriphasics would no doubt come to replace the outdated monophasics over time. You see, it does not matter that the FDA has not approved tri's or quad's in the status quo, since they do so as part of my advocacy. ==== ICD's vs. External Defibrillators Neither of the studies I presented state that they are talking about ICD's. In fact, the first study I gave explained that it used EXTERNAL defibrillation: "Under fluoroscopic guidance, via right external jugular access, a 0094 Endotak lead (CPI) with a 4.7-cm-long RV electrode and a 6.9-cm-long superior vena cava electrode was positioned with the tip at the RV apex. A titanium can with a surface area of 92 cm2 was placed in the left pectoral region and made electrically common with the superior vena cava electrode." My opponent has completely fabricated this nonsense about how my studies are talking about internal defibrillators. Here is a statement from the other study I presented: "The defibrillation shocks were delivered from commercially available self-adhesive monitor-defibrillator electrode pads (model M3501A, Philips Medical Systems, Andover, Massachusetts) with a conductive area of 102 cm2, placed on the shaved chest of the pig. One pad was placed anteriorly over the sternum, and the second pad was placed posteriorly over the vertebral column." For those who don't know, the M3501A is an EXTERNAL defibrillator pad. Source: http://emecompany.com... Both of my studies used external defibrillation. My opponent is fabricating all claims to the contrary, and I have supported my claim that they are external defibrillation. Even so, if they were internal, it would make no difference. The studies were done to compare the effectiveness of different waveforms, not the effectiveness of internal vs. external. ==== "Manufacturing cost of monophasic vs. biphasic" I never claimed to know the difference in manufacturing cost between monophasics and biphasics. I simply know that the difference in manufacturing cost between biphasics and triphasics is quite small, due to identical hardware with only software differences. ==== "Existing tech" Triphasics are currently available, by way of the fact that a simple firmware update will change most biphasics into triphasics. See my first source, which I've shown was talking about external defibrillators, which claims that they can be converted quite easily, with only software updates. This also makes sense, since biphasics already have hardware capable of 1. giving a pulse for a certain amount of time, and 2. Automatically switching to a new pulse after the first pulse. There's nothing new that a triphasic would need. Due to this small difference between biphasics and triphasics, biphasics could be converted immediately, and biphasic manufacturers could switch the default firmware immediately. ==== "Mang's Expertise" Sorry, but claiming to have expertise and asserting that I am wrong does not amount to a good argument. I have provided a credible source - a rigourous, professional study in a well-respected journal. I have also explained why there would need be no hardware changes to convert biphasics to triphasics - biphasics already have all the mechanisms necessary to operate as triphasics. All that's necessary is a simple firmware change. But just in case someone believes my opponent's argument here makes sense, that his self-proclaimed expertise is superior to my sources, I hereby proclaim myself a super-expert, and I'm saying my opponent is wrong. Therefore he is wrong, because I said so and I claimed I'm more of an expert than he. And once again, my opponent ignorantly claims that my studies were using ICD's and this mysterious 'Mac computer,' with nothing but the sound of his voice backing him up. And as of this round, I've shown that both my studies were in fact using EXTERNAL defirillation, contrary to my opponent's unbacked claims. ==== "Not in opposition" My opponent claims that my advocacy is not in opposition to his, but it is. I detailed my advocacy quite well earlier in this round, and it does not contain the replacement of monophasics by biphasics. Thus, I am negating the resolution, I am explaining why, RATHER THAN monophasics being replaced by biphasics, they should be replaced by something better than biphasics. My opponent must simply show why his advocacy, which includes biphasics replacing monophasics, is superior to mine. ==== "Lastly" I explained last round that my opponent's advocacy requires the manufacturing of more biphasics. There are simply not enough biphasics sitting idly on merchants' shelves to replace all monophasics. Even so, it doesn't matter. Biphasics can be converted to triphasics quite easily, with naught but a change in firmware. And perhaps even into quadriphasics, though I don't have a source backing me up on that one. In either case, either would be superior to the biphasics my opponent wishes to use, and since biphasics can be converted to triphasics rather easily, it only makes sense to do that right away. Oh, and thanks for the study showing that quadriphasics are the best of the first four waveforms. If biphasics can be converted into them easily, that's just one more way to negate the resolution. ==== "My opponent should either concede the debate, or educate himself on the subject if he is to continue." Thanks for the advice, Mang, but I'm already quite educated on this topic. If you remember, I'm a super-expert. Hopefully you don't up the ante and proclaim yourself a super-super-expert, or things might get a little crazy. Good luck to my opponent in the following rounds. |
7 | a6f755aa-2019-04-18T13:27:57Z-00000-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Should young people be allowed to vote... Since you did not respond, that means that I have won. Thank you for this debate. |
27 | 9358e77c-2019-04-18T11:27:48Z-00007-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws It"s simple: Australia enacted strict gun control in 1996 and since then, there has been either zero or one mass shooting (depending on what you consider a mass shooting). America let"s every citizen carry a gun and it has resulted on an average of one mass shooting every ten days in 2018. If America issued the same buyback scheme and gun laws John Howard enacted, the mass shooting count would drop significantly, if not completely. |
24 | da2ddeb5-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Income Tax The reasons why a progressive income tax is a good idea is because it is: A fair tax system Reduces Income Inequality - Healthier Society Increases Government Revenues Enhances the Economy and Opportunity C1: A Fair Tax System [1] The progressive tax is the most fair type of tax system, because it takes into account the purchasing power of an individual after paying taxes. With my sample of rates, the less well off get to keep much of their income. This is economical and fair. Consider the three main economic groups, the poor, middle class, and wealthy. Poor: This tax system taxes the poor lightly. This leaves the poor with much of their purchasing power. However, since the poor spend much of their income on necessities, they are still able to afford them. Plus, since the poor have a higher propensity to consume, they stimulate the economy. Middle Class: The tax system taxes them not too heavily either. They can still spend much of their income after taxes, and much of this income is put back into the economy as consumption for necessities and comforts. Wealthy: The wealthy make much money already. They have the lowest propensity to consume, and therefore do not spend that much of their percentage of money on consumption, but rather they save and invest. The reason that they pay a larger percentage of tax revenues is because they are rich already. The top 20% of citizens own over 85% of the total net worth of the USA. It isn't inaccurate to also say that the top 1% owns double the net worth of the bottom 80% of Americans. [11] The rich pay more, but they don't pay much more percentage-wise, or pay less [10] than others. So don't complain that they already pay much, they can definitely and morally pay more. In fact, the top 400 taxpayers last year only payed an average of 18.11% in taxes. This isn't fair. [10] Analysis: With a progrssive income tax, economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes, allowing still more income to be collected, while the rich will not reduce consumption because of their already vast wealth. C2: Reduces Income Inequality - Healthier Society The progressive income tax (P.I.T.) reduces income inequality, which has been reported to have a number of societal benefits, such as lower homicide rates at all income levels. [2] With a steeper progressivet tax, income inquality decreases. Plus, Richard G. Wilkinson, an economist, has said that societies with more equal distribution of incomes have better health, fewer social problems such as violence, drug abuse, teenage births, mental illness, obesity, and others, and are more cohesive than ones in which the gap between the rich and poor is greater. [3] C3: Increases Government Revenues The progressive tax increases government revenues. The rich pay their fair share, while their purchasing power is still not affected, while the less well-off can spend more in the economy, and stimulate it because of their high consumption rates, which then improves tax revenue, and the higher consumption fuels a stronger, broader prosperity. Tax cuts for the rich does not create jobs, and if it happened to, it would still be in the national interest for more revenue for the government instead. [5] The rich don't create jobs like the middle class. Companies create jobs, which requires consumption. A progressive tax fuels consumption in multiple ways. With more income, the rich aren't going to create jobs. They just invest and save. This doesn't create jobs. To quote multimillionaire Henry Bloch (co-founder of H&R Block): (about tax cuts for wealthy creating jobs): "That's so baloney," Bloch said. "Rich people don't create jobs. Companies create jobs."…"You probably pay a higher rate than I do… and yet my income is probably many times what yours is," Bloch said to FOX 4 Reporter Rob Low. [4] C4: Enhances the Economy and Opportunity The American taxpayers have paid for our nation's infrastructure. The rich just get rich off of what the previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this great nation a great deal, and should be paying it back, by paying their fair share. If they don't, people in the future will not have as much as an opportunity to climb the economic ladder as [the rich today] have. [8] ----Infrastructure Spending Government spending is an investment. It is your payment to live in a civilized, modern nation. Your taxes, as well as the taxpayers of the past, have paid for the infrastructure that we all -- especially the rich -- use. The highway system, the medical establishment, the communications system, airline system, space program, education system, the Internet, the national defense, consumer protection, public health care possibilities, the GI bill, Social Security and Medicare, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and all other assets we have come from the wise investments our parents and that we have made. What is does------The progressive tax system I have laid out in R1 shows the rates Loopholes are ended. All people pay, because we all benefit from this nation's infrastructure. Tax reductions are cut, and some such as the mortgage deduction are lowered, so the lower rates are substituted for some instead. The Affects of P.I.T.------With higher taxes on the rich, consumption is fueled for the middle and lower classes, improving the economy. Opportunity, coming in the form of a stronger economy and a vibrant infrastructure, is more prevalent. Also, the rich who got rich from the taxpayers pay some of their fair share, will still remaining rich. Rich Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs! [4] [5] [6] [7] [11]The middle-class and the poor, through their consumption, create most jobs. If you give a rich person hundreds of thousands in tax refunds, they will save or invest with it. Companies expand and hire more with more demand, not more supply. [1] Conclusion: A progressive tax system improves consumption, fueling the economy. Tax deductions are removed, and higher taxes on the rich are instituted. The higher taxes on the rich improves society in many different ways, including better health and ethical standards. The rich pay their fair share, while remaining rich. The vast American infrastructure is fueled for later generations, and for ourselves, and we, as well as later generations reap the improved economic benefits. It is justifiable, fair, and makes broad prosperity, instead of prosperity for the few, which has created only large deficits and higher debt. [7] It is the better system. It is a modern, moral system. It is fair, proven, and needed. Vote Pro ***Plus, a Flat Tax is regressive, and obviously a regressive tax is regressive. My opponent then supports a bus driver paying more than Bill Gates or some rich guy. Sources: [1] http://conceptualmath.org... [2] http://psych.mcmaster.ca... [3] UK Hardback edition: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane, 5 March 2009. [4] http://thinkprogress.org... [5] http://www.forbes.com... [6] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... [7] http://www.addictinginfo.org... [8] http://www.dailykos.com...- [9] http://governmentisgood.com... [10] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [11] http://www2.ucsc.edu... |
15 | 1375840e-2019-04-18T19:40:29Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | cricket no more a gentleman's game u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me? |
44 | 5e30e768-2019-04-18T19:07:13Z-00000-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Since no evidence or reason was given as to why "talk like a pirate day" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute. |
11 | 117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues ! |
44 | 62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Parody Election My opponent, Ash Ketchum, has created fake conversations. Also, Mr. Ketchum has obviously gone crazy, which leads me to the conclusion that he is not fit for Presidency. |
34 | ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you for your acceptance of this debate. To begin, I would ask for consideration of the actual impact of any negatives of social networking. My opponent contends businesses are negatively affected by social networking sites because employees use working hours to go onto social networking sites. However, if one looks at the sources my opponent has presented (http://www.net-security.org... and http://mashable.com...), it will become apparent that it is very easy to block such undesirable social networking sites, *reducing their impact to negligible levels* (a statement which I assume my opponent agrees with based on his sources). As I presented in Round One, rather than being harmfully impacted by social networking sites, businesses have benefited. Companies like Comcast, Best Buy, and IBM have been successfully using social networking to increase their customer satisfaction (thanks to the ease of personal care and more readily available help with social networking forums) and increase their employee retention rates (since employees are more inclined to feel like they "belong" when interacting on social networks). In fact, according to Graham Jones, an "Internet Psychologist," Best Buy has seen its turnover rate drop to a mere 8% after implementing their employee social networking system (compared to the 60% industry average turnover rate seen previously in Best Buy). In addition, I would like to reiterate that of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65 percent say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient, and 45 percent forty-five percent say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. As such, far from being detrimental to businesses, social networking sites have far-reaching benefits. My opponent also mentions that social networking leads to an increase in sexual predation towards teens. However, according to Michele Ybarra, the founder of Internet Solutions for Kids, "There has been a recent concern about the risks posed by social networking to young people, but we found that instant messaging [and chat rooms were] more frequently cited than social networking sites as places for unwanted sexual solicitation and harassment." According to Harvard.edu, 43% of unwanted sexual solicitations occurred via instant messaging and 32% occurred in chat rooms. In addition, social networking (and even the internet as a whole) is *not* the catalyst for a rise of sexual predation. According to Time Magazine, "only 2.4% of arrests for sexual assault are against Internet predators." This translates to only .6% of arrests for sexual assault being caused by social networking sites. Evidently, have little impact when considered in the big picture. Contrary to my opponents belief, many experts in the field advocate social networking as beneficial towards self-confidence levels. Emma-Jane Cross, Beatbullying's CEO, explains that "[t]hrough this technology, so many young people, ripe for bullying at school, have found a community they can call their own and have benefited so powerfully to become emotionally resilient young people with renewed self confidence and greater life chances." BusinessWeek writes that "[w]hen people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy." Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in an online environment. Also, I would like to note my opponent agrees with my "educational impact" contention that I explained in Round One. In summation, social networking sites have a positive impact on the United States because 1) They are great tools for businesses to reap large rewards 2) They provide substantial benefits in the education of America's youth 3) They allow an increase of self-confidence among Americans 4) Sexual predation is extremely uncommon on social networking sites, ergo having minimal impacts 5) The impact of the few amount of hours lost at work thanks to employer's blocking undesired social networking sites is far surpassed by the other benefits provided to businesses by social networking sites. |
13 | d3d77219-2019-04-18T16:07:25Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels Fuel -- it is combustible matter (like oil, for example) but is also "an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors"http://dictionary.reference.com...;http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;The resolution, therefore, allows for my discussion of the conventional fuels (Nuclear, Gas, and Coal), which my opponent drops and therefore concedes my argument that they are, on balance, safe and cheap forms of energy which save lives. One of the alternative definitions--an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors--also encompases my arguments on alternative energy sources, and another drop by my opponent. My opponent also mentions alternative fuels in the more 'obvious' sense, such as ethanol in cars for example. Well, the fatal flaw with ethanol is that it kills starving poverty stricken human beings in third world countries. Using ethanol is simply immoral. These alternative biofuels come from food, such as corn. An increase in the price of food--as supply shrinks for fuel consumption--will mean a few things. (1) a family buys less food, (2) a family buys the same amount of food, but less of other items. The fact is, a poor family who spends its entire income on food and essential equipment will have to buy fewer of one of these essential components to life. Either way, people will die in our attempt to go green. Corn used to be about $3.00 a bushel, now its around $8.00 [1]. The African income is around $315, a year [2]. This means if all an africans income was spent on corn, they would only be able to buy 39 bushels of corn, if each was $8. If it was $3, they could buy 105 bushels of corn. But one has to remember, they spend their income on other things: fuel (such as coal) to heat their homes. To subsidize alternative biofuels is simply immoral and will kill Africans. Further, to regulate and favor forms other than coal in America will also increase the price of coal, which means more people will die of the cold in, say, Lesotho where they are in an arid but in high altitude enviroment. But lets put the price of coal into more perspective: the United States. I live in New Mexico, I am at about 6,000 feet above sea level. There are poor people here, who dont have homes, or live in inadequate homes. In the winter, it gets extremely cold. In the summer, it gets very warm. If you increase the price of energy in this region, people become more succeptible to heat waves of the summer and cold times of the winter. People cant fuel their homes--this is in direct relation to the resolution, as it is a conventional fuel. Further, gas is pretty expensive. Last time I filled my car it was about 3.30 or something. New Mexico is a poor state. To increase gasoline prices with ethanol, you not only make them spend more on their food, their energy, but also at the pump. This means they consume less of other items, lowering their quality of life or in extreme cases, endangering it. The simple fact is, to support these 'clean' alternative forms of energy kills people, and lowers peoples' quality of life.What is the reason to have these biofuels, these alternative energy sources? To stop climate change, which will kill a lot of people supposedly, and reduce pollution which is so bad right now... or nah. Climate change has already stopped. There has been no warming for 17 years and nine months, with a slight cooling trend around 2002 [3]. Further, with the warming we have seen in the 20th century, there is a much closer correlation to the sun than with CO2. CO2 doesnt correlate after 1997, during the cooling mid century, and doesnt correlate with minor flucuations from 1980-1997. The sun correlates with temperature along all of these intervals, and is a much better explanation for the warming of the 20th century [4]. Yep, we switch to ethanol all we want, to be a bit informal and feel a bit like Penn and Teller, it wont do jack sh!t about global warming. Pollution is bad in the US though, right? Nope, wrong. I will get more in depth into this than I did in the following round. Particulate matter in the US has fallen over 50%, toxins from industrial plants has fallen over 70%, and new cars using those old conventional fuels are 90% cleaner than they once were. Average pollutants dropped 20-96%, depending on the pollutant. Aggregate air emissions has fallen 25% 1970, while populatin has increases 39%. Smog has fallen by 1/3 even though the amount of cars has doubled and the distance they travel on average has increased by 143% [5]. Yes, the air is getting cleaner without all of these interventions my opponent espouses. My opponent must prove that:(1) We need these alternatve fuels--even assuming that governments are more efficient and making them be produced, it begs the question whether or not we need them to decrease the climate threat(2) Demonstrate that these alternative fuels--which include ethanol and other sources--will save more lives through a cleaner world than what is lost through increased food prices(3) And three, demonstrade why the current fuels are 'bad', I demonstrated the excellence of coal, gas, nuclear, etc. My opponent has not attempted to refute this, dropping the argument. If the conventional fuels aren't bad, why should we switch to another energy?(4) And 4, prove subsidies are the correct method. The market will choose the most efficient form of energy based on prices. If ethanol was truly efficient, it would not need government intervention. As the Mises instutute argues, "As with ethanol and recycling and a host of other issues, you must ask yourself again, if these things are so efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? Answer: they're not so efficient."[6](5) That these alternative fuels are actually economically efficient. Although ethanol at a glance is cheaper, it leads to less efficiency, increased food prices, and decreased mileage. This means that, in the long run, subsidies are favoring a more expensive energy source which will increase pollution--more gas usage--and also costs, as you have to go to the pump more often [7]. I have provided many convincing arguments throughout the debate as to why conventional energy methods are acceptable, and in many ways superior, than 'alternative' energy sources. My opponent has not provided one logical argument or empirical proof to her opinion. It is like an op-ed... without any facts to prove it. I have cited my assertions with proof and the sources are easily accessible for those who want to make sure what I am saying is true.* *My sources this round are not posting correctly (they keep saying page not found), so I will post a second copy in the comments in hopes that they will work there, for those who wish to read them1. http://www.forbes.com...2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://wattsupwiththat.com...;4. http://people.duke.edu...;5. http://www.manhattan-institute.org...;6. http://mises.org...;7. http://www.usnews.com...; |
7 | e3bc33dc-2019-04-18T19:32:29Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | The homeless should be allowed to vote. I extend all my arguments and await my opponents response. I would like to remind him he has the burden of proof. |
23 | 41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Should assisted suicide be legal I would like to say more on this debate but my opponent has not given me any information to refute. |
42 | 90232b-2019-04-18T17:52:46Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Fighting Now, it's up to the voters to vote on who wins. Happy voting! :) |
44 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | 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 |
9 | a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should wear school uniform. I agree with you that allowing students to wear whatever they want helps them in their creativity and teaches them how to make their own decisions. But doing learning journeys, whenever a student gets lost, what if a teacher that the student does not know happens to walk past him? And if the teacher also does not know the student is from the same school? If the student is wearing school uniform, then the teacher would know that he is a student and help to bring back to his class. But if the student is not wearing school uniform, then the teacher would not know he is a student. Bullying does happen in schools if the students wear school uniforms or not, but at least for schools with uniforms, the victims of bullying will not have to worry about the clothes they wear which is one less thing to worry about as long as they keep their uniforms neat. |
14 | 7c3403c3-2019-04-18T19:06:43Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda. Freeman, Thank you as well. Defense of my C-2. Is it a possibility, but not very likely at all. Was it silly, far fetched? Indeed, however, I have lost debates on this site based solely on semantics. Since it IS a very remote possibility, I decided to include it. Since it was not discredited, it stands. The argument over sources again off-sets per the information I will provide below. Further, if I did not touch your second point, how could have mentioned things that I alledgedly didn't argue? My opponent attempted to discredit my sources by stating that they were right wing biased results. What were his sources? Left wing biased results. Not enough? Let's examine the quote from one of my opponnet's sources Ivanka Savic : me: Ivanka Savic-Berglund, MD, PhD Title: Associate Professor and Senior Consultant Neurologist at Karolinska Institutet at the Centre of Gender Related Medicine in Stockholm, Sweden Position: None Found to the question "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?" Reasoning: "I want to be extremely cautious - this [my] study (Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men) does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that." http://borngay.procon.org... Further, my opponent mentioned the American Pyschiatry Association as one of his many sources that "concurred": Biased Studies? Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups almost never show anything positive about homosexuality and studies linked to liberal political and religious groups and/or gay support groups almost never show anything negative about homosexuality. So this means that we all have to take a step back and look at all these studies with a calm and a cool head. Though obviously being biased (since I know what the truth is from my own life experience) I still can not include any studies financed by the anti-gay religious right because for me the results are disingenuous, outrageous or even outright laughable. For example, Click Here to read about the ruse or junk science known as the Thomas Project or �€œEx-Gays?�€ï¿½: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation whose principal investigators, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse both worked for universities with strong anti-gay biases (and therefore had a vested interest in the outcome of the study) Wheaton College and Pat Robertson University respectively. On the other hand I have tried to weed out the studies with the more favorable outcomes to my side that seem to have some basic problems with their methodology. For example, I have not included the results of the following studies because these results could not be independently replicated by other researchers: a) The so-called "gay gene (Xq28) study" done by Dean Hamer. b) Post-mortem (after death) studies of the hypothalamus of the brain of homosexual males done by D. F. Swaab, Laura S. Allen, and Simon LeVay. o However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Click Here on the American Psychological Association Website link, then scan down to the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" and you will find the direct quote as used above. My opponent stated that I glided over single parent children. While that is not directly the subject at hand, I will speak to it. Single parent children will also miss out on the contributions of the missing parent be it male or female. In the scenarios presented by my opponent, he implied that all gay/lesbian parents are model parents without fault. Is it better to have.......? That is assuming that all gay/lez parents are, which they are not. MANY probably are, as are MANY hetero; however we cannot make this an all inclusive/exclusive. It is situational and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Children are deserving of loving parents, and as such, careful placement MUST be paramount in the decision process. This idea directly ties in to the suitablility and parental potential of adopting families. The various departments of children and family services do a variety of checks to ensure children are being placed in a suitable home. For example, in Tennessee potential adoptive parents complete MAPP classes (Modern Approach to Partnership in Parenting). A home study is completed on the parents individually, together, as well as anyone residing in the home. Background checks are completed. Then 2 announced and 1 unannounced home inspections occur. If favorable, then parents are considered for placements. In the case above, parents are given information regarding the child. Can you accept a child who has (fill in the blank(s)? Parents need to know this for compatability. I will say that adoptive parents should NOT always attempt to change something about the child they are receiving. Sexual orientation notwithstanding; for example. REBUTTAL: I will not go so far as to say that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I will say that whenever possible, straight children should be adopted by straight parents; and children with homosexual tendencies adopted by homosexual parents. As I stated, and undisputed, in Round 1, children "model" the behaviors of their caregivers. This would alleviate many of the inevitable questions that are certain to accompany such a placement. It is inevitable a child would witness public displays of affection, such as kissing. It is possible if not probable that they would also have some exposure to private displays of affection (I won't go there). They would be naturally curious to at least question if not experiment. With that in mind, it is clearly most beneficial to place straight kids with straight parents, and gay kids with gay parents. CONCLUSION: Contention 1: Worst case, both off set, best case mine is stronger. Contention 2: Unlikely, but possible, thus defended. My opponent did not have a 2nd contention. I win this debate My opponent cited Biblical scripture from the comments section. As promised, I refrained. I was expected to make all of the concessions, and surrender my opinion. (Reminds me of my beloved Israel!) Unfortunately, the best compromise that I am capable of is listed in my rebuttal. I was attacked in print for stating my opinion, yet I did not attack. Of the 50 plus comments, only 2 had anything supportive of me. Some even encouraged poor sportsmanship. So I ask, Who was really acting the part of the bully here? I have provided credible evidence to back my case. I have provided credible evidence to dismantle my opponent's case. Given this, I request your support in a PRO ballot. Thanks to Freeman for a good contest! |
36 | 1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00004-000 | Is golf a sport? | Gaming is a sport Gaming or Esports by definition is considered a sport. (1) What are the requirements for something to be considered a sportTypically most sports share similar qualities. They require physical activity, strategy, are competitive based, require reflexes, require training to improve, etc. No sport is required to have all of these but can pull from a few of these in order to be classified as a sport. What my adversary is going to try and do is paint a picture where Esports does not require you to use much physical activity. Meaning he's going to lump sports like baseball, football, and wrestling and use that as an objective gauge for what should be used to be classified as a sport. Imagine this objective gauge as a bar. For him to do this he must show the exact measure and classifications for what should be considered a sport. Meaning if physical contact is a requirement, then why is running a sport? This extends throughout that line of logic for, however, he chooses to apply it. If just the use of physical activity is a requirement then why is pool, shooting, and other things that require primarily reflexes sports? For him to classify sports in that way he must show that all other sports that are considered sports fall under whatever categorical application that he is going to apply objectively across the board. (2) Why Esports are SportsOnce we dispell the notion that sports require physical contact or a great deal of physical activity, we can clearly see that Esports are sports. Sports that are objectively considered sports that work on reflexes and not much physical activity are pool, shooting, hunting, etc and so forth[1]. I could list a lot but it would be a waste of time, these are mostly obvious and shooting is an Olympic sport so we can assume it's universally considered to be a sport and the measure that this is gauged as a sport should be applied across the board.Esports require you to use strategy (which is one thing most sports have in common), reflexes (which is another thing most sports have in common) and even can require you to activate and practice with muscle memory (which most sports also require). Use this sample as a way to prove this as a fact [2]. The more you try to click on the dot the easier it gets. Over time your muscles recognize movements when you are trying to flick the cursor on the dot, and you are able to respond with faster movements with a motion called flicking. Gaming most certainly requires muscle memory and every shooter invokes this. Esports all requires a whole new level of strategy and critical thinking. Being able to make the right decisions on the spot when you are under pressure is also another common characteristic a lot of sports share in common. ConclusionWhile gaming and Esports are not a traditional physical contact sport, it does invoke muscle memory, critical thinking, strategizing, and meets requirements that would label it as a sport. Not all sports are bash or brute, some require timing, mental fortitude, and sheer reflexes and as I mentioned earlier some of these sports such as shooting are already classified as sports even on Olympic levels. So if we apply the same standard objectively, we must consider Esports an actual sport otherwise it's being biased. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://scratch.mit.edu... |
39 | 3c53b33f-2019-04-18T15:23:42Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | "Christians" - The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept! Churches across the world teach that YAHUAH's Ten Commandments were abolished - nailed to the cross with The Messiah, YAHUSHUAH, and that they are no longer required to be kept under the New Covenant. Is this what YAHUSHUAH and His Apostles taught? Did they continue to teach and observe the commandments? What does the Bible say? For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. - 1 John 5:3 In Matthew 5:17, The Messiah says, "Thinke not that I am come to destroy the lawe or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." So why is that people think that the laws are done away with? YAHUSHUAH clearly advised us NOT TO EVEN THINK THIS, yet Bible scholars and ministers GO AGAINST the teaching of The Messiah, and teach that we do not have to keep The Most High's laws. We are clearly warned of these false teachers by Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – "For suh are false Apostles, deceitfull workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. V14 And no marveile, for Sathn himself is transformed into an Angel of light. V15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also bee transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." Satan's ministers pawn themselves off as The Messiah's ministers and Satan makes himself out to be YAHUSHUAH! Apostle John taught throughout his writings that the law is still to be observed by YAHUAH's people. In John 5:14 & 8:11 The Messiah told people to "sin no more". WHAT IS SIN? I Jn 3:4 states, "for sinne is the transgression of the law". SIN IS THE BREAKING OF The Most High's COMMANDMENTS! YAHUSHUAH said not to break them anymore! John clearly states that we don't even know The Messiah IF WE DON'T keep the commandments (I Jn 2:3-6). He continued to show that we are to keep the commandments in the book of Revelation. Rev 12:17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Now read Rev 14:12, " Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 22:14 states: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." What about the apostle Paul? False teachers take Paul's writings out of context to say that the Law is done away with. The apostle Peter gave warning of this in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul himself kept the law and declared, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". He wrote to the Romans saying "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13). Concerning the GRACE of The Most High that we are under, he asked, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" V2-" God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2). And concerning Law and Faith he asks, " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31) These are simply a few of the countless Scriptures, which show the Truth of Law keeping for "Christians." Let's now view the New Covenant and make a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear throughout it. I'll list each of the commandments as they appear in Exodus 20 first, followed by their New Covenant counterparts. 1st Commandment OC: " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.V3 -Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:2-3) 1st Commandment NC: "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10/ Luke 4:8). 2nd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or thatisin the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fouth generation of them that hate Me; And shewing mercy unto thousands who love Me, and keep my commandments." (Ex 20:4-6) 2nd Commandment NC: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols . . . "(Acts15:20) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:9,10) "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph 5:5) 3rd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." (Ex 20:7) 3rd Commandment NC: "I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Mt 12:36) "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."(Mt 15:8,9) "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) " …that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1Tim 6:1) 4th Commandment OC: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh dayisthe Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in themis, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11) 4th Commandment NC: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mt12:8/Lk 6:5) " . . . it is lawful to do well on thesabbathdays." (Mt12:12) "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day."(Mt 24:20) " . . . they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught." (Mk1:21) "And he said unto them, Thesabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27-28) 5th Commandment OC: "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Ex 20:12) 5th Commandment NC: " . . . Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying,Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Mt15:3-4/Mk 7:10) "Honour thy father and thy mother . . . " (Mt 19:19/Mk 10:19/Lk18:20) 6th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13) 6th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Mt 5:21-22 - see 1Jn 2:9) " . . . Do not kill . . ." (Mk 10:19) 7th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14) 7th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mt 5:27-28) "I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Mt 5:32) "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery . . ." (Mt 19:18/Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) 8th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15) 8th Commandment NC: "Thou shalt not steal . . " (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) "Do not steal . . . " (Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) " . . . thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:10) "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Eph 4:28) "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Rev 9:21) 9th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex 20:16) 9th Commandment NC: " . . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt 12:36-37) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man." (Mt 15:19-20) " . . . Thou shalt not bear false witness . . ." (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) " . . .Do not bear false witness . . . " (Mk10:19/Lk 18:20) 10th Commandment OT: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17) 10th Commandment NT: "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Lk 12:15) "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Rom 7:7)" . . . Thou shalt not covet . . . " (Rom 13:9) |
5 | f2dab09c-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account. |
22 | 71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. " They are hostile to each other for complex historical reasons, communism will not make that go away overnight. Once more, all the Palestinians want is independence, not equality. (1) There's a reason why the Palestinian Liberation Organizations is recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. "Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state" The outcome of war such as the one that occurred in 1948 is unlikely to reoccur for three reasons. 1. ) The Palestinians would be getting what they wanted, unlike in 1948. 2. ) The PLO has denounced violence and terrorism and become an observer state in the UN. 3. ) By recognizing Palestinian independence, Israel would be improving relations with its Arab neighbors, not hurting them. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. If there has never been a communist country ever, what makes you think Israel could be the first one? This is an illogical answer because it is simply not realistic. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. Just because every other option has flaws does not immediately mean that communism isn't a flawed option as well. "Real" communism under your own definition advocates class war, and something tells me that a class war wouldn't lessen the violence between Israel and Palestine. It is possible to have a fair and equal two state solution as well. I would like to congratulate my opponent on achieving the prestigious rank of "Level 69 goblin virgin mage". Once again, and I really don't know how many times I can emphasize this, the Palestinians want independence more than anything, and the Israelis want security. (2) Even now the Palestinians and Israelis live in relative separation. By forcing them together the Palestinians would be deprived of their independence, and as such would very likely lash out against Israel. This already happened in the "al-Aqsa Intifada" (3) Thus, the Palestinians would be denied their independence and the Israelis their security, meaning that neither faction had their main goal met, making communism a highly illogical solution once more. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. I used caps lock because you seem to get distracted from the argument easily and typed up a whole pointless paragraph about China, which has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. If you would like to argue the merits of Maoism, please save it for another debate. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country What I meant is that Israel operates under a capitalist economic system, and that it's main export and import partner (4) as well as military ally is the United States, which would probably not take kindly to its main ally in the Middle East to turning communist. "True" communism would not work because as I have proven it would not help solve any of the main issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would not give either faction what they wanted, and would simply not be supported by the people. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but in order to be logical something has to work practically, so you can't use semantics to try to distort the argument. Vote Con! Sources: 1. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 2. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 3. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 4. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org... |
41 | c0c9c4b4-2019-04-18T19:04:39Z-00004-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Resolved: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted. I affirm the resolution. RESOLVED: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted. The debate will be as follows: ROUND 1 Pro: Introduces contentions Con: Negates Pro and introduces own contentions ROUND 2 Pro: Refutes Con and defends own contentions Con: Refutes Pro and defends own contentions ROUND 3 Both sides: Impact analysis- why did Pro/Con win this debate? New new contentions/evidence should be introduced in this round. Responding to a question or clarification from the previous round is okay. ========== BACKGROUND ========== The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 (I will refer to it as the SNDA) throughout this debate) is a bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) in the House of Representatives and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) in the Senate. The intent of the SNDA is "To end discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, and for other purposes." The full text of the bill can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov...: ========== MY CASE ========== ---------- Contention 1: The SNDA Is a Necessary Counterpart To the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ---------- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by public schools on the basis of race, gender, religion and ethnicity. It is time that these provisions extend to sexual orientation and gender identification. Growing evidence indicates that sexual orientation and gender identification are not influenced by social criteria as much as it is hardwired into the subject (1). Because of this, for the most part, one's sexual preference is as innate as one's ethnicity. Furthermore, religion is clearly more of a conscious choice than homosexuality, yet the former remains protected under the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, sexual orientation and gender identification remain as much a civil right as race, gender, religion and ethnicity. ANY harassment on such a basis that a student may face while trying to get an education should not be tolderated (2). It is time for the federal government to acknowledge and protect this basic civil right. ---------- Contention 2: Lack Of Negative Effects Resulting From the Passage of the SNDA ---------- This may be a defensive argument, but I am presenting it anyway in an attempt to initiate early clash in this debate. I challenge my opponent, whomever he or she may be, to point out any harms that would occur if the SNDA were passed. Hypothetically, even if sexual preference or gender identification is a conscious choice and not a protected civil right, what negative effects would the bill produce? No student would be receiving priority over another. The majority's rights would not be transcended by the minority. The rights of the minority would simply be raised to the level of the majority. Furthermore, the SNDA does not entail "indoctrination" of any kind. No one will be forced to befriend homosexual students or even express any welcoming of homosexuality. The SNDA simply guarantees that homosexual and transgender students fulfill their legal education requirements free from physical or psychological abuse on the basis of their sexualities. The resolution is therefore affirmed. The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1) http://www.sciencentral.com... (2) http://www.tolerance.org... |
16 | f0a137c7-2019-04-18T17:56:16Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All Drugs Should Be Legalized I challenge AshleysTrueLove to an intellectual dual. I sincerely hope he accepts, and in the case he does, I wish him luck in the following brief rounds. I argue that the resources government uses to enforce drug laws are wasted. (1) (1) http://www.cnn.com... |
48 | b72d2186-2019-04-18T12:12:43Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The voting age should be lowered I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts. |
29 | 9e36ecf4-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society. |
12 | 6f0bf5f7-2019-04-18T15:48:21Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | God Probably Doesn't Exist Ontological ArgumentDefinitions D1) A positive property: A property that does not lessen the excellence of some entity that has the property, but whose negation does lessen the excellence of the entity. [1] D2) Something has necessary existence (from now on, 'Ne. Ex. )' iff: F (x has F) and y(y has F) and y(y has F & y=x)]. D3) Something is strongly positive (from now on 'EA') iff: (having A essentially is a positive property). The Argument Here is the argument laid out: P1) If 'A' is any strongly positive property, then, necessarily, there exists a being that both exists necessarily and essentially possesses 'A'. P2) The properties of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are strongly positive properties P3) To possess a conjunct of strongly positive properties is a strongly positive property C) There exists a being which exists necessarily and essentially possesses omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection (from 1,2,3)Defence of P1) Take the axioms: F1) If A is positive, then ~A is not positive. F2) If A is positive and A entails B, then B is positive F3) Necessary existence is positive. These axioms are self evident. If some excellence 'perfect power' is positive, then 'no power' is not positive. The same is true of necessity: to necessarily exist is an excellence and to contingently exist detracts from excellence. Also, if some excellence holds true, then anything it entails cannot be non-excellent (otherwise, it would not be an excellence). From the axioms F1-3, we can form our first theorem (P1): T1) if A is any strongly positive property, then there exists a being that exists necessarily and essentially has A Proof of T1 Take these subsidiaries: Lemma 1: If X has necessary existence, then (X has Ne. Ex), Proof: By S4: Lemma 2: For any property B, suppose x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has B). Then: x(x has Ne. Ex. and (x has B)). Proof: Through existential instantiation, suppose X has Necessary existence and X has B. From Lemma 1, necessarily, X has necessary existence: x(x has Ne. Ex). Now, take system B of modal logic (if p, then p). Then, x (x has Ne. Ex. and (x has B)). Thus , if x Fx, then xFx. (from lemma 2) quod erat demonstratum. Lemma 3: If A and B are positive, then A and B are compossible. D4) A conjunct of properties p is compossible iff possibly there is an entity that possibly exemplifies all the members of p. Proof: For reductio, suppose positive properties A and B are incompossible. then, A entails ~B. But this contradicts F2. As both Ne. Ex and EA are positive (from D1,3,F3) it follows that they are compossible (from Lemma 3). Thus, the metaphysical possibility of the being described in T1 is established. We are now in a position to prove T1: Assume the conjunction 'p' of some entity having Ne. Ex. and EA. By Lemma 3 and S5, there possibly exists some X that p in all possible worlds. Therefore, x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has EA). As this would be a conceptual truth, x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has EA). Now apply S5 to the equation. It then follows that there exists some x which has Ne. Ex and EA (removing the " "from the equation). But through S5, it follows that there exists some x which has both Ne. Ex and EA, for essentiality under S5 is an equivalence relation in accessible possible worlds such that if x is possibly essentially a, then x is a in all possible worlds. Therefore T1, quod erat demonstratum. Defence of P2) and P3)F4) Essential moral perfection, essential omniscience, and essential omnipotence are strongly positive properties Proof: taking D2 and the excellence view of positive properties; essential omnipotence, essential omniscience and essential moral perfection are all positive properties, as they all increase the excellence of a being and their negations (impotence, ignorance, morally abhorrent) lessen the excellence of the said being. F5) To essentially possess a conjunct of compossible, strongly positive properties is strongly positive. Proof: If every single property in a conjunct is positive, then to possess all of them, rather fewer than all, is positive, for it does not detract from the excellence of the entity but its negation (to possess fewer than every positive property) does detract from excellence. To essentially possess this is strongly positive. Defence of C1) T2) From F1-5), there necessarily exists a being who is maximally positive, posessing essential omnipotence, essential omniscience, and essential moral perfection, et hoc omnes intelligunt deum. Proof of T2) First we will need the following lemma: Lemma 4: if A is strongly positive, so is EA. Proof: EA --> EEA follows from S4: Suppose A is strongly positive. By F1, so too is EA. Suppose P is the property of essentially possessing all EA properties. By Lemma 4, Where A is strongly positive, then if an entity has every A, then it has EA. By F1 and F5, P is a strongly positive property. Therefore, by T1, T2 entails. Therefore, God exists. Cosmological Argument Now, for a cosmological argument from contingency (contingency being facts that are neither tautological nor impossible). [2] 1) Every contingent fact has an explanation 2) There exists a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts (BCCF) 3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4) This explanation must involve a necessary being 5) Therefore, there exists an external, necessary being that is the cause of all contingent facts. The focus will be on P1, as the other premises are less controversial, less likely to be contested and obvious given P1. Defence of P1) For the first premise, I must defend some version of a non-local Causal Principle that suggests that 'every contingent fact has an explanation'. So what sort of principle shall we use? I'll proposing something like the following sub-syllogism: T1) If E can have an explanation, then E has an explanation T2) Every contingent fact can have an explanation C) Therefore, every contingent fact has an explanation T2) needs little support; it is a weak claim that is evident by the very nature of contingency. And even if we assume the PSR or CP to be false, any contingent fact still possibly has an explanation, so this is uncontroversial. So the focus will be on T1), so I'll commence with that. It will be based on the modality of counterfactuals. Proof of T1) First, take two lemmas. Lemma 1) Take Lewisian counterfactual semantics: that p --->q holds iff there is a p&q world that is more similar to the actual world than any p&~q world, or p is necessarily false. [3] We need not take the full account for the argument though. A weaker version can be held: viz. that if p --->q, we should move to metaphysically relevantly similar worlds where p holds and see whether q holds. [4] This is true simply because there is no other means to figure out counterfactuals except in subjunctive investigation. This weaker account also has the advantage that it is void of the criticism of Lewisian semantics. Lemma 2) If p, then p. This is the Brouwer axiom (system B in modal logic). We are now in a position to prove the following conditional: F1) (q&p&M~p)--->(~p --->(p --->q)) In other words; say p and q actually hold, and that in a relevantly similar possible world, p does not hold. Therefore, it is metaphysically possible that p does not hold. So we have the antecedant; q&p&M~p. By Lemma 2, and the antecedent, it is the case in the relevantly similar world that ~p, possibly p and possibly q. Thus, ~p actually holds, but as p and q possibly hold, then p -->q. Now take the following lemmas (Where ==> is entailment) Lemma 3)(p==>q)-->(p -->q) Proof: Entailment is equivalent to necessary conditional. Lemma 4)((p -->q)&(p -->~q))==>~Mp Proof: if some proposition necessarily entails a contradiction (both q and ~q), then it cannot be possible. We are now in a position to prove T1. Let q be the proposition that event E occurs and possibly has an explanation (id est, E is contingent). And, for a reductio, suppose p is the proposition that E has no explanation. If E can have an explanation, then it is metaphysically possible that E has an explanation. By F1, the following occurs: ~p -->(p -->q) Let w be a possible world where E has an explanation. Thus in w, E has an explanation G. On the dependency principle: (if A is the explanation of B, and there is no C that causes B(for overdetermination) then if A were not to exist, then neither would B) then in w, if G were not to exist, then neither would E. Thus, p -->~q. As this is true at every world in which q has a cause, the following arises: ~p -->(p -->~q). Or, in worlds where E does not have any explanans, if E does not have an explanation, then E does not occur. But p -->~q is equivalent to ~(p -->q). So; ~p -->~(p -->q) and therefore, by Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, causes a contradiction, and thus, it is not metaphysically possible that p, contrary to the original assumption that p. Defence of P2 What might the 'BCCF' be? Simply, it is the aggregate of all contingent facts, objects, propositions, etc. in the actual world. [5] This itself must be contingent, by its very nature: a conjunct of contingency cannot be anything other than contingent. Defence of P3 This follows from P1. If the BCCF is a contingent fact, and all contingent facts have and explanation, then the BCCF has an explanation. Defence of P4 We must now deduce the nature of the explicans. It must be either necessary or contingent (there is no other option). If it is contingent, then it is included in the BCCF and no progress is made - by P1, it still needs to be explained. And, pace Descartes, nothing can be causa sui or explanatory prior to itself. Thus, the explanation must be necessary. Defence of P5 So, we must admit the existence of a necessary, external cause, from Premises 1-4. Conclusion I have shown that via the nature of positive properties and of contingency, through certain axioms, God must exist. Sources in comments |
36 | 2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00004-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is golf asport Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet. |
43 | e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) ik you were about to ask me this, i was to tell you this is a troll question. |
33 | 8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same. |
15 | ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | should animals be used for scientific research This is the second time this has happened to me, someone instigating a challenge with a short response period and then going offline. It's honestly annoying since these kinds of debates have potential. Extend refutation. |
41 | 528b5a91-2019-04-18T12:26:46Z-00000-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Should student be aloud to have cellphones in class Just saying that students should be allowed to have their cell phones in class simply for the reason "So if you forget something that you need you can just call to get back" is absurd. If a student forgets his/her things they should not interrupt the class because he/she made a mistake. The student should ask to be excused or simply call before the bell rings. |
40 | 75f847ca-2019-04-18T16:17:53Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | death penalty Hello, welcome to DDO.org. I want to thank my opponent for starting this debate and beginning the round with such a complete picture of what kind of death penalty rules she see acceptable. I will attempt to give the readers a good morally and logically contention to her concept of death penalty. Because she is the instigator and began with a clear definition of what they see as the correct execution of the death penalty, I assume the Burden Of Proof is shared (BOP). I think my alternate position will be elaborated through rebuttals of my opponents statements.Case 1 The death penalty is moral (part 1)My opponent states, "In my opinion the death penalty is immoral. Partly because you "thou shall not kill" but also because two wrongs don"t make a right, so killing someone in retaliation would be teaching society that it"s okay to kill if the person has committed a wrongful act and as long as it"s handled by the government"the Bible as God's word clearly states the Death Penalty is moral and the rightful execution in matters of the law. The Old Testament is peppered with the punishment of various crimes being death. For the sake of brevity I reference Leviticus[1],"Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:21This clearly states that for the crime of killing a man is death. This was usually done by stoning in that day. This verse is from the Old Testament and for some Christians is not part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant still encompasses the 10 Commandments. My opponent says partly to do with "thou shall not kill" [2] This is better translated as "Thou shall not murder" [3], because the Hebrew word for kill in Exodus 20:13 is never used to describe killing animals, or when a soldier kills in battle. How could this Commandment be thou shall not kill if the executioner from Leviticus is killing convicted criminals? You would have to kill the executioners. That is absurd, that is because killing when in the employment of the government is not murder. So according to the bible the Death Penalty is moral.For the sake of brevity I will leave this for now and answer rebuttals. I plan to present more arguments in latter rounds for the morality of the death penalty.Case 2 (rebuttal) The system is unfair and unjustMy opponent contends that the system is unfair and unjust. What legal system in the world is either of those? The system is made by mankind, ran by mankind, institutionalized, enforced by mankind. It is going to be inherently flawed with human bias and human corruption. But it is also refined, peer reviewed, and reinterpreted by mankind. This means that is not a system set in stone and such atrocities as unequal punishment for the rich vs. poor or black vs. white can be addressed by the voice of the people and change can occur. Now I want to make something clear, this system is not a Justice System. It is a Court System.[4] The law is a body of work to establish reparation of wrongs done.[5] Clearly the fact that the system may fail at times, is not a justification to not implement the punishment at all. In fact, my opponent asserts the same thing when in closing they state, "So if the death penalty becomes more widely used the court system needs to become more reliable and less corrupt."Case 3 Exceptions to the Death PenaltyThis is where I think the readers can see my opponent takes a surprising term. I thought she was against the death penalty in all cases but they assert "However the ones who are mentally insane... should be given the death penalty". _O.0_ what! what! So my opponent is no Pro-death penalty but only for the criminals who suffer a mental illness. She continues to claim, "...psychopath and butchered several people without any sympathy or remorse, but that"s because more times than none the medical treatment isn't going to help and there is the possibility of them escaping and starting again." First clearly it is not the responsibility of the medical staff to also handle security! Security should be left to the guards and those trained in physically detaining a human. But more to the point. As society gains a better knowledge of psychopathology they gain better treatment techniques. It's been shown now that many people who exhibit psychopathy are not murderers, they are doctors and lawyers.[6] And many murderers do not test positive for psychopathy. Therefore the punishment should apply equally well to this subset you have illustrated. Shows more the violent of killing someone was not accidental or by loss of a sober mind, but was more likely to be deliberate.Case 4 (rebuttal) Guard PTSDMost states have individuals who are paid just to do executions. You claim killing of thousands will give Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to the guards. Thousands is a bit extreme. In 2013 there were 39 executions the entire year. The lowest amount in the last 5 years. All those executions were not done in presence of the same guards. Second, PTSD does not work that way. It is not everyone experiencing an event will get PTSD. Usually PTSD is from life threatening events. The guards probably get PTSD from their normal high stress working conditions.I pass the round to my opponent.[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...[3]http://www.biblegateway.com...[4]http://realtruth.org...[5]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6]http://www.neulaw.org...[7]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... |
7 | efc20695-2019-04-18T17:14:27Z-00009-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Continue the sentence. Simply continue the sentence. I will say a part of a sentence, you continue you it, then I continue what you said, etc. For example: I say, "One day," You say, "the apple" I say, "jumped over a" You say, "very dumb, looking pencil." I am looking for something funny and entertaining that two people of different minds would be able to put into a sentence. When I was walking down the street, |
5 | dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social security should be privatized. As Daniel Webster once said, "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio. |
34 | 4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) "As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process." Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' " says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are "exploring and experimenting" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. "There's been a definite shift the last two months," she says. "There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before." I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become "friends" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting. |
29 | 928a8d47-2019-04-18T18:32:03Z-00003-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Border Fence Thanks 32no. Here I go. I'm going to make an opening statement before I proceed. It is the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens at all times, whether the threats are in our own country or from another country. This observation shows: The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the "back door" that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. [1] So right now the U.S Federal Government is failing its job to protect, here's why: Point 1: Public Safety The U.S Federal Government has a job to fulfill which is (as I stated before) to protect its citizens, this obviously includes public protection. These statistics show: A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants…. "Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants." [1] These statistics clearly show 1) How many gang members there are in the U.S 2) How much violence they are responsible for 3) A large percentage of these gangs are made up of illegal immigrants. If the U.S Federal Government doesn't build a Border Fence then it is not fulfilling its job of protecting its citizens from the public threat of illegal immigrant gangs. The Border Fence can prevent them from coming over or discourage a larger number of them coming over therefore reducing the amount of public danger from illegal immigrant gangs, and protecting its citizens. Point 2: Jobs Another job for the U.S Federal Government that falls under protecting its citizens is to ensure that they have jobs where they can work, earn money, and therefore support themselves. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period. It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. [1] These statistics clearly show how illegal immigrants take jobs that U.S Citizens need. The U.S Federal Government has an obligation to its own citizens first which is why we need to build this Border Fence to ensure that U.S Citizens have a better chance at getting a job. When we build the Border Fence we will have less Illegal Immigrants coming across the Border. This results in less jobs being taken by Illegal Immigrants and give American Citizens a better chance at getting jobs therefore the U.S Federal Government will be upholding its obligation. Point 3: Economy This is a BIG issue. To make sure our economy is stable falls under the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens because the country needs money to function. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year. Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits. Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things. The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. Thanks to illegal immigration, California's overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. [1] These statistics clearly show how 1) These illegal immigrants are more than likely to send money back to Mexico than to spend in the United States and increase our economy. 2) Illegal Immigrants pay almost nothing in taxes and they receive tens of billions of dollars in benefits. 3) Taxpayers pay close to $12,000,000,000 just for Illegal Immigrant children to go to public school, AND as my earlier statistics show that these Illegal Immigrant children are more than likely to end up in gangs. 4) California now has less emergency rooms/hospitals to help U.S Citizens because there were so many Illegal Immigrants that couldn't pay and received health care benefits. 5) Tax Payers spend about 1,600,000,00 a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants. This causes our economy to shrink by a rather large amount and it isn't even going to our own citizens. Thanks for reading my arguments and I look forward to 32no's rebuttal. :) 1. http://www.infowars.com... |
2 | 4e7e2b83-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Toxic Smoke Thanks Con for a very quick response. I'll present my own case (although the 3K char. limit is tough), and then refute my opponents statements. Observation: I need not prove that Cigarettes are good, rather that they ought not be banned. I in fact agree whole heartedly that they are bad, but by what grounds does that warrant legal prohibitation? The BOP is all on my opponent, not only for advocating a change in the Status Quo, but for making the intial claim that Cigarettes ought to be banned.I will offer two contentions, one based off of a moral perspective, and the other a practical one. I. Bans on Cigarettes are an over-reach of Governmental powerI contend that the fundamental purpose of Governments is to defend the rights of their citizens. Thus we must look to what rights are, and what the government needs to do to protect them. In the case of substance abuse, bans are morally wrong because an individual is the sole owner of their own body, and thus the individual has the right to consume whatever they wish provided that they are not acting aggressively against others to consume said substances. Perhaps a case for the just prohibition of mind altering substances could be made because those reduce an individuals ability to rationalize, thus leading to irrational decisions that could harm others. In the case of Cigarettes, however, this is prima facie untrue; while Cigarettes may have certain minimal mind-altering characteristics, there has never been a death linked specifically to those characteristics. From this it follows that governmental restrictions on Cigarettes are a violation of personal autonomy, and therefore systematically unjust. The government respecting rights outweighs all other factors, because governments that throw away the rights of their citizens become oppressive and violate even more rights.II. A ban on Cigarettes would be impractical The U.S. department of Agriculture[1] estimates the total value of Tabacco farms in the United States to be $2,382,255,000. Tabacco prohibition takes all of this value and destroys it, and economically displaces these people. Further, there is absolutely no reason to beleive that Tabacco prohibition will have any affect--refer to the 1920's era prohibition or our currently failling Drug War to support this. More on this later (low on characters), I will now refute what my opponent has stated.My opponents argument consists of unsourced statistics and emotional appeals. You should look to my contention two, because there is no reason to believee that banning tabacco products will make any significant difference. I offer a turn on this argument: banning leads to adulterated substances which are significantly more dangerous than regulated substances such as cigarettes according to Drugscope[2].Thus you negate.1. http://www.ers.usda.gov...2. http://www.drugscope.org.uk... |
11 | ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible |
3 | 3b255dde-2019-04-19T12:44:21Z-00005-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | File-sharing Should Be Allowed The internet allows for more plurality and gives music listeners more choices than commercial radio ... |
6 | 5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Going to college is financially not worth it It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college. |
22 | de2d2345-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israel Is Wrong Forfeit by Pro so rebuttals are directed at round one only. Summarization of ArgumentsAs highlighted, history would suggest that the ongoing conflict was in fact not initiated by Israel. Even before large-scale Jewish immigration, Arabs (though of course, not all) within Palestine began riots in populated areas such as Jerusalem and then initiated events such as the Hebron, Jaffa and Safed massacres. The majority of this was led by Haj al-Husseni (the mufti), someone from an extremely wealthy background and whose domestic interests (such as small ownership of land/property) were not threatened by any future incoming migration. Because of his new political interests, he became an admirer of and also asked to receive the assistance of Hitler in "solving the Jewish elements" in not only Palestine but all other Arab countries. When Israel did eventually become a state, it experienced a year long war in which it was forced (because of invasion of Israeli territory, and repeated threats) to defend itself and eventually won. Because territory lines drawn up by the U.N were only armistice, the settlements that currently exist within Israel are technically not "illegal". Rather they are merely on disputed land that has not formally belonged to a sovereign entity since the Ottoman Empire.After its War of Independence, Israel still continued to face intermittent terror attacks--as it is still doing in present time. Sometimes such attacks from individual or small groups of persons acting alone and, as many cases show, on other occasions they were militant organized attacks. The next prominent terrorism group to be established was the Palestinian Liberation Organization--that is now known as Fatah. A group that was created by Yasser Arafat, and began by launching terror raids against Israel in 1965. A year after in 1967 the Six Day War started, primarily because Syria had decided to mobilize its troops against Israel and because Egypt has closed the Straits of Tiran, a hugely important shipping area for Israel. Both classify as an "act of war". Evidently neither armies were dissuaded from initiating war again, as both Egyptian and Syrian attacked Israel in 1973, while Yom Kippur was being celebrated. Other Arab nations such as Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Sudan, and Kuwait assisted aided these armies with financial assistance and military support. Libya in fact contributed $1 billion to Egyptian army and provided expensive weaponry. Despite the fact that a number of ten countries were involved and the obvious military superiority, Israel still managed to eventually secure a victory, if not a very close one. As with the Six Day War, terrorist groups still began to form and Israel still continued to be targeted. While Fatah is still an acting organization, and current has current governance of the West Bank, it is now Hamas that is Israel's main issue in terms of conflict and neighboring terror groups. I'll state once again that all conflicts concerning have been initiated and prolonged (example, refusal and rejection of ceasefire) by Hamas. One of the ideological starting points of Hamas is: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, May Allah Pity his Soul)."Here we have a "martyr" of Hamas explicitly stating that Islam will eliminate Israel. Which of course, involves the provoking of war and killing of civilians. The Hamas Charter also goes on to state:"This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long."Rather this is not referring to Israel in its name, this one simply states "the Jews", which categorizes not a country but an entire group of people. Drawing again to Article 51 of the UN Charter which confirms Israel's right to self-defence when under attack, therefore contradicting your resolution of Israel being "wrong". Clearly it is not legally wrong in defending itself, so how else exactly is it wrong? Seemingly, the sense of wrongness is your opinion only. Now I'll allude to previous statements by Pro. Rebuttals"Listening to Netanyahu's defenders in the media (and that is pretty much all you get as objective reporters are yanked off the air), I'm struck by how Americans are indoctrinated into ignoring the most significant fact about Gaza."This statement is undermined by the fact that Nentanyau does indeed have his share of critics, in America and elsewhere. There's also no evidence provided to suggest that the American population is indoctrinated into ignoring the most, or any, significant fact about Gaza. "That is the cause of the "war." Yes, Israel has the "right" to defend itself but Palestinians have the "right" to resist occupation."Gaza is not occupied. In fact, it has been a Palestinian controlled area since 2005 when all Jewish citizens were withdrawn. Likewise, I have also clarified that that territory lines in other parts of Israel (such as Jerusalem) are only UN armistice, so therefore, no land is "occupied" illegally. "At the time Ariel Sharon withdrew the settlers, when the Palestinian Authority was still in charge of Gaza, he refused to coordinate Israel's withdrawal with Abbas who, despite his pleas, was not even told when the pullout would take place. Abbas wanted to ensure that the militants (who he effectively subdued in the West Bank) would not seize control. Sharon refused and the militants took over."Do you have any additional evidence to support this assertion? If Abbas had wanted to fully ensure that no militants took over, as leader of the Palestinian Authority he could have. Israel did as it was advised by withdrawing from land and handing it over to Palestinian control. The fact also remains that Hamas was elected by the residents of Gaza themselves. "Ultimately Gaza separated from the West Bank and Israel was free to enter Gaza at will, killing or imprisoning whoever it considered a threat, and, in the process, hundreds who weren't. Militants launched rockets at Israel and Israel responded, disproportionately as always."Once more, no proof is presented. Because Gaza belongs to Hamas, Israel is not free to enter Gaza at will, and the only people whom are imprisoned or killed are militants who show an active threat. The response to rockets and missiles being fired at civilian targets is not also disproportionate, the issue is that civilians are assimilated with militants. I'll also point out that there is nothing credible to suggest that there was any definitive knowledge of what happened the three Israeli teenagers that were kidnapped and killed. Hamas in fact later confessed to the murders and the culprit was caught by Israeli forces. "They are supporting Netanyahu for one reason alone: ethnic solidarity."Evidently you're unaware that Nentanyahu receives a considerable amount of criticism by Jews worldwide and by those in Israel, not for the reason that you'd likely think, but because that they believe he is simply to indecisive when responding to rocket fire and most recently: the threat of underground tunnels to Israelis in the south. The claim that questions listed in round one are not available to congress/media is also fallacious. Media criticism and coverage very suggests otherwise. [1.] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...{2.] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... |
12 | c4c24b85-2019-04-18T17:11:29Z-00005-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Counter attack Oops, I'm afraid my Pikachu's Thunder has activated the sprinklers on the top of the room... Onix is weak to water...quad-weak. "Onix is unable to battle" "Pikachu wins the round..." "That means ezhang77 wins" Lol xD |
40 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
44 | df6622c4-2019-04-18T19:14:19Z-00000-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays 2 Here's some fun math to talk about: 1*-1=-1 1*1=1 and -1*-1=1. Likewise in arguments a negative times a negative equals a positive, and negative times a positive is negative. The resolution is a negative statement and I have the positive side; therefore I have a negative burden of proof. You have the negative side so you have Positive burden of proof. therefore it is not my duty to convey why you should not celebrate a holiday until you provide sufficient justification for celebrating. That should win the argument for me in this debate, but lets hypothetically say I don't really think that and believe the voters will not either, then I will go ahead provide more reasons for why you should not. Your refutation about my point of earning more money was your retired. But you see the flaw with that argument is that you should not be retired either. this state of existence is an illogical one to enter into in the first place. the ultimate goal for anyone, God or no God, before they die is to leave the world a better place than when we left it. To contribute to society. As long as there is breath in our bodies this is still something we can do. But often we can never truly measure the good one has done until some time after they have died and there has been enough time to start seeing the chain affects directly resulting from the actions of their life. So in our own live there will never be a day we can say with certainty "I have left the world a better place than it would have been had I not been born, so I can quit contributing and retire now" Plus the resolution deals with all atheist, not just you, and we can not assume that all atheist are crippled to a degree that they can not help anymore so retirement is a state of existence they must enter. So its logical to benefit society for as long as possible and never retire, and it is logical to make more money, so one should not celebrate a holiday. Another point worth making, if being a hypocrite honestly is concerning enough to us that avoiding being such warrants stating we should not do certain things, then by your definitions this qualifies well enough as being hypocritical. Because to celebrate Christmas as you defined would bring you to church on Christmas morning reading scriptures about the birth of Christ and how he was a gift of god. You, an atheist, who does not believe their even is a god... well the action would contradict your stated belief. Celebrating L Ron Hubbard's birthday as you defined it would involve passing out copies of his book "The Way To Happiness". You, an atheist, who does not believe in any Gods, would be doing something contradictory if you celebrated the life of a man who not only thought that there were gods,but that you could become one. (I am aware that they don't use the 'term' god, but that is what a thetan is). For an atheist the resurrection of the dead is not possible, So it contradicts to celebrate on Easter the rising from the dead of an individual 2,000 years ago. Unless you believe in sin, then Christ sacrifice does not mean anything, so that would contradict in your action to celebrate it. But as I said all this would only be pertinent if being a hypocrite is a relevant factor to whether one 'should' or 'should not' do something. I am not sure I could prove that it is. But they are other reasons I can argue not related to money or being a hypocrite that show you should not celebrate the holiday's. Because it is outright detrimental to the quality of your life to do. One might read that and go 'are you crazy, holidays are fun, an important factor to improving the quality of ones life' One might also not ever go into such deep thought on their own witch is why I pose the question for you. But bear with me and I shall explain. Whether you believe their is a god or their is not, All generally agree that we should live our lives,that our life is ours and we should rise up and live it! the expression 'difference in breathing and being alive' or 'standing outside the fire' is rooted in this philosophy. Everyone would want to 'be alive' (not a reference to your mortality) as being so is described in Tim McGraw's song 'live like you were dying'. I contend that Holiday celebration is a disease to your ability to live like you were dying. The hype surrounding enjoyment of a single day causes a lull into the quality of every other day of the year. You merely 'get by' day to day waiting like a drone for the next holiday to come. I ask you why would anyone logically choose to make Christmas the day for giving gifts and helping the poor? the Native Americans gave presents to each other in potlucks long before the people who brought the celebration of Christmas with them to America. why show special affection to your wife on Valentines day when she deserves it everyday from you? If you recognize the day specifically enough to show romance on it you are accepting in some degree that all other days of the year are not for showing that much affection to her. If you do give her your love on all other day's of the year then there is nothing during Valentines day to even recognize, because it is the same as any other day. All of this is especially important for you Con, because if we ignore the reasons I gave for not retiring and simply look at the purpose and goal behind doing so, you retire so you can spend all your time doing things that are fun. If you live your life in a way that you can not be said to have 'lived like you were dying' then the whole purpose of your retirement is a failure, so it can be argued that it is vital that you avoid holidays that can be a poison to your doing so, so I am arguing it. Maybe it is possible to celebrate holidays without lowering the quality of your life every other day of the year waiting for them to pass by. But if there is the danger's are far to high. So this I find is my best argument to fit my opponents criteria for persuading why he 'should not' observe a religious holiday, because it not enough to warrant explicit forbidding statements in my conclusion, but enough to advise against. So to wrap up: 1) Con had the positive burden to justify celebrating any holiday in the first place. 2) retirement is not a logical reason to pass up overtime, because retirement is not logical in the first place 3) Observing (as Con defined) the holiday's (as Con defined) honestly is contradictory in action with the professed belief. So if being a hypocrite is concerning to you, vote Pro. 4) Every man dies, but not everyman lives. don't waste your life waiting for holiday's make every day special, and in effect make nothing special about the holidays. For any of the above 4 reasons I urge the voters to vote Pro on arguments Because My opponent has sourced to define stuff and not directly back up an argument, nearly ignoring the definitions as was, vote Pro on sources. As for spelling and grammar, vote Con, I understand why Conduct, vote tie, I have enjoyed this debate and do not see any uncordial act on either side. Hope you had a happy Goshen last Sunday, the third Sunday of Advent! http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.scientologytoday.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... |
21 | a6304144-2019-04-18T17:12:32Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Speak gibberish. Me walc down da street wen me homie be like fo show dood. I be like foo da fuq u be doin ta me? And he be say in lik escuse me foo? I show u da worl and u be lik fagers/ Aw naw foo, ima be woopin yo a$$. an he be lik kik me in da nuts, but me like NOPE bish and i go all lik kuungfu karate on dis foo. He go down. Dem cops be all ova mah soon. So fo get dis. I do sum cra-z a$$ s***. Probz ova da wall and arg da dang I be say in. why da worl so cra-z in da nuts man. i wanna liv ma life lik a bose. no lik dis nig. no lik dis. so i be parc owa lik ova da dem wals. o yea to dem foos be lik s***tng me. i say y u do dat to me? y? theres no boobes to be lik dis. i mma k o dem. but nope. dey got dem guns. man, you gotta be kid ing me. r u fo weels? dis jus ima lik F u B****. so i go lik dat one guy be lik o yea cra-z in da nuts. i woop outs my ninja styl. yes to dat me guy an me win fo da winD! yes i accomish, dis story tim is lik o yea. i won da worl with as kik time. yeay i did it. imma weener. i da bom yo. das rite. i da coo foo. i da dope nig. i can go and chop chop dam yall. yall be lik ah naw, imma be poopped. yessum foos i go to da win. den me gey random i be lik wha? no mo fun. no mo fun dis guy gets. sucs to da worl dey no kid, y? y dis so gey, lazr jus bak at me. supa lamo dat is. dis place sucs. i don lik dis mes up worl. it mak s no sens. i wishh tim to be geow in. no mo hug fo u. no hug fo U. cuz imma top da worl eh, im top da worl eh, i wanna be da ver bes, noboedy eva was. so i cood not doit. o well. nex tim, ill be rdy... ill be tim ta gey u bak, ill seeec my venjance. ull be sry dat u worl tacle me in da bak. |
6 | 1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00007-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define 'costs' We would like to define 'costs' as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government's money we'll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today's debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today's debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don't let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone's life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn't even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn't even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that "Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?" asked Van Horn. "While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority." This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates' loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests."It's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up" - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way. |
45 | bb7cc5ca-2019-04-18T16:42:28Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | This is the Best Way for a Government To Stay in Power I call it the Arcane Regime System. Imagine in the fictional nation of Kabyristan the government is overthrown by Islamic insurgent groups known as the "Mojhadin" (Kabyr language for "freedom fighters") and they take over the country. In most scenarios the insurgents put their soldiers out in the open within every village and city, patrolling the streets in vehicles with machine guns in the back. However, in my scenario, the people do not see the new regime. There might be an open police force or town militia, but other than that there's apparent government...on first glance, that its. The regime's soldiers are trained in hidden camps, and the soldiers live double lives in times of peace. Few people know the identities of these soldiers. However, if there is civil unrest, they'll put on ski masks and suppress the uprising. If an enemy invades, they'll fight the enemy in disguise and go back home later. The invaders won't know who the enemies are. The government controlling the soldiers would be hidden as well. They'd be hidden in buildings, and few people would know who those buildings belonged to. They'd have an underground information network and that's how they'd pass information from one branch of the government to the other. When the nation and the new regime is secure, the Mojhadin would bring their government out into the open and make their presence official. But not before then. You're probably wondering what the purpose of this would be. Well, for starters it would provide security against new insurgent groups and against invading armies. If an invading army came, the government would not be overthrown because the invaders wouldn't know where the government buildings were. At best the armies could occupy cities and villages, but the hidden government would still be within occupied territory, planning to drive out the invaders. Nor would there be any open army bases. The Mojhadin could instantly initiate guerrilla warfare and resistance tactics against the invaders. And if another terrorist group tried to take power, there would be no way for the terrorists to take down the Mojhadin. They wouldn't know where the government buildings or army bases were, and the Mojhadin could spy on the terrorists without the terrorists knowing it. No one would know who was a soldier, so these soldiers could easily infiltrate the ranks of the terrorists. If you don't think this is a good system, accept this debate. I await a response. |
29 | 12db5a7d-2019-04-18T11:09:51Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Trump's Wall Should Be Built The Wall's Efficiency: 40-60% of illegal immigrants enter the United States through the Mexican border. 400, 000 illegal immigrants are apprehended at the Mexican border annualy, 260, 000 have already been apprehended this year alone (https://www. Cbp. Gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration). Even if most illegal immigrants don't come throught the Mexican border, That's not an argument against building the wall. A wall would still stop the 40-60% from coming in. Analogy: if you have cancer and a broken leg, Do you ignore the broken leg? No, You treat the broken leg first. Just because we have bigger problems doesn't mean we shouldn't solve smaller problems. You can't go through and over a wall. A border wall would have security guards and barbed wire, Which stop such things from happening. The only way to cross the wall would be under it, Through a tunnel. But that's not an argument either! We have walls around prisons, Should we remove walls from prisons because some inmates can build a tunnel under them? No! Most illegal immigrants won't enter through tunnels. Such tunnels would have to start very far from the wall and end very far from the wall, They would be very expensive, Take months at best to build, And would be discovered by the US or Mexican government. Nobody is saying that the wall would stop ALL illegal immigration, But it will stop most. Illegal immigrants commit more crimes than legal immigrants, But slower than US citizens? So what! If legal immigrants commit less crime that illegal immigrants, Shouldn't all illegal immigrants enter as legal immigrants to decrease crime? Shouldn't we build a wall so illegal immigration will drop, And crime as well? It doesn't matter if illegal immigrants commit less crime than US citizens, THEY STILL COMMIT CRIME. Same analogy as before: if you have cancer and a broken leg, Do you ignore the broken leg? A wall will decrease the amount of drugs, Period. You're right: the price of drugs will increase. And that would mean that poor people would do less drugs! Increasing the price up so much would stop people from using a product. In the US, For example, Cigarettes are taxed to make them very expensive, Which stops most people from smoking. Increasing the price of a product decreases the demand. Simple supply/demand economics. Wall Funding: Even Trump's biggest critics estimate the wall at no more than $25 billion. That is a miniscule amount. The annual US budget is 4 trillion. The US army's budget is a whopping 600 million. ICE gets almost 6 billion a year. Heck, Even NASA gets 21 billion! Compared to other government projects and organizations, A wall is almost free. Plus, Building a wall would mean the ICE budget could be significantly reduced! The funding from the wall is a more difficult issue. President Trump has proposed that we use money from the $180 billion trade deficit of Mexico. But like I said before, It doesn't matter where we get the money, The price of the wall is tiny compared to the annual budget. So even if the money came from American taxpayers, Price isn't really a problem. Illegal Immigration: Nobody should be allowed to enter the United States without the government's permission. The US isn't morally obliged to let anyone enter: not illegal immigrants, Not refugees, Not legal immigrants, Only US citizens. Illegal immigrants commit crime and increase the US crime rate. They also steal jobs from US citizens. Illegal immigrants are very poor, So employees can pay them almost nothing and fire US citizens which demand more. Eventually, Most low-level jobs will be taken over by illegal immigrants. US citizens that hold these jobs now will lose them. That doesn't happen because illegal immigrants are better workers or because they do jobs that US citizens won't do: it happens simply because illegal immigrans want less money. The facts don't agree with you. 40-60% of illegal immigration will be stopped by a border wall. Places on the Mexican border with fences have lower illegal immigration. Walls have worked everywhere: in prisons, In foreign countries, Even in your house. Building a wall wouldn't automatically solve the border crisis, But it would decrease it by a lot. A wall is also very cheap to construct. Trump's wall should be built as soon as possible, In order to decrease illegal immigration and solve the current border crisis. |
13 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | 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 |
7 | 7df2804b-2019-04-18T11:16:10Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Should Teenager be allowed to vote The reason i say yes is because teens can work and pay taxes as young as 15, And I don't think it is correct to pay taxes to a government that denies one the right to vote. Also, Many issues affect children, And I believe the First Amendment rights to free speech and redress of grievances do not only apply to adults. No one is saying younger people should vote, But 15 or 16 is reasonable enough. For the record, I am 37, But I am also a children's rights supporter. I believe children have rights, And if they are citizen's old enough to work and pay taxes, They have the right to vote. I see taxation without representation as a form of slavery. We are supposed to be the land of the free, Not the home of the enslaved. Peace. |
40 | 7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death penalty should be allowed So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away. There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called "Miracle in Cell no.7" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty. |
20 | 8bc06cc8-2019-04-18T13:52:54Z-00002-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | is Pepsi better than Coke How to recognise lots of different trees from quite a long way away The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch |
13 | 66b2945d-2019-04-18T18:09:27Z-00001-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion. However, the only direct counterstatement to any of my contentions has been "Magnetic confusion [sic] relies on magnets. Inertial confinement relies on electrical power only. This seems more promising. " No sources have been cited, nor any reasoning for this claim provided. To be honest, I was hoping for a bit more in-depth argument, as I did preface this debate with "must be knowledgeable in the subject to accept". Also, note that the magnets used in magnetic confinement are solenoidal electromagnets, relying also only on electrical power and superconductivity. In any case, Con has not presented a complete argument to counter the original resolution, other than an uncited and unexplained opinion. |
45 | 8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00004-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The penny should be stopped from circulation I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void. |
21 | 70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. 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. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. 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. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate 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. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. 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. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: 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. [8]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. Humans' Emission of CO2It 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. Now, it 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. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "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 more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading 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. '"[12][13][14]Another 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. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if 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. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse 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. 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. |
35 | e62711e-2019-04-18T16:32:48Z-00000-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games do not Cause Violence I appreciate your courageous concession. Since you have conceded, I have won the debate, so I urge the votes to be in my favour. Thank you for the debate. |
26 | b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics. |
33 | 7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Should People Become Vegetarian While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food. |
36 | 6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is not a physical sport My apologies for taking so long to post my first argument. Time has not been on my side lately. Golf, according to sporteology. com, is the 8th most popular sport in the world. [1] It has about 400 million fans across Europe and the USA, which, thankfully, allows a wealth of information to be available about the intricacies and physics of the sport. The "Physicality" of Golf Two of the things that golf fans will run to when trying to defend it as a physical sport are: 1. The fact that players have to tote heavy bags of clubs around all day, and 2. The force of the swing. Let's start with the bags of clubs. These can get pretty heavy, ranging from 30-50 pounds. [2] So this obviously appears to be a valid argument concerning golf being a physical sport. But is it really as physical as other popular games? CalorieLab. com has a great average calorie calculator that shows you how many calories will be burned for a person of any weight. Let's look at the calories that will be burned for a 200-pound man in various sports. Basketball game: 637 calories/hour Boxing, sparring: 728 calories/hour Baseball: 364 calories/hour Football: 728 calories/hour Ice hockey: 637 calories/hour Rugby: 819 calories/hour Soccer: 837 calories/hour Now for our oh-so-physical game of golf: 319 calories per hour. Not exactly how you would want to lose weight. In fact, one can burn exactly the same amount of calories just shooting hoops, and MORE by skateboarding and fishing out of a stream with waders! [3] As a matter of fact, one can make a very strong case that NASCAR is much more physical than golf (and a LOT of sports in general). NASCAR drivers experience cockpits that heat up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit while wearing a firesuit, helmet and gloves. This causes them, by sweating, to lose 10 or more pounds in a single race, to say nothing about calories burned! They can experience 2-3 Gs of force in turns on a fast racetrack, roughly the same amount that astronauts experience during space shuttle launches. Forget open-wheel drivers, who sometimes deal with 4-5 Gs! Shaquille O'Neal, an accomplished basketball player, took a few laps in a NASCAR race car and said he can't remember a game or practice that was more demanding. Show me a golf player who's bigger and stronger than Shaq! [4] [5] [6] Golf swing Golf fans also seem to cry out that learning to swing a golf club correctly is very difficult. I would agree that it is difficult to master accuracy and precision, but impossible? No, and physical, definitely not. According to golfswing. com , a golfer can put up to 4000 pounds, or 18,000 Newtons, of force on the ball. But according to Patrick Drane of the Baseball Research Center, a baseball player, who, by the way, has to reverse a ball coming at him at about 90 miles per hour, can put up to 8000 pounds of force on the ball, which works out to over 35,000 Newtons! ! [7] [8] Now we can look more in detail at the athletics involved. We can look all day at golf players that are in shape and compare them to other strong and fast athletes of other sports, but let's go the other way and look at the most out-of-shape players in professional sports. Perhaps the heaviest player in pro golf is Guy Boros. He weighs 265 pounds and is easily recognizable for his large girth. Boros has several parallels in pro baseball, namely Prince Fielder, who weighs 275, and David Ortiz, 250. But their weight doesn't limit their athletic ability. Prince Fielder has been called the "strongest man in baseball" by his teammates, and David Ortiz bench presses 400 pounds. [9] [10] Now look at American football. Albert Haynesworth was one of the biggest and heaviest football players ever. But the 6'6, 350-pound monster ran a 4.82 second 40 yard dash at the combine (ok, he was 317 at the time) and could bench press 425 pounds. [11] [12] Can Guy Boros do any of this? He is overweight, and there's no indication he can bench press anything other than his bag of golf clubs. In other sports, however, athletes who have a lot of weight are also some of the strongest players in their respective sport. I might also point out that golf is a preferred sport among senior citizens, unlike baseball, basketball and football. Stewart Cink himself, a six-time PGA winner, has admitted that "physically, golf is not super-demanding. " [13] So far, I am satisfied that I have shown that golf definitely is not "characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. " I do not deny that golf contains many skills that take a long time to master, but beyond that, it is not a physical sport. Carrying a bag of clubs around is not near as physical as a basketball game, a football game, a baseball game, or even driving through left turns for 3 hours. I look forward to Con's reply. Sources: [1] . http://www.sporteology.com... [2]. http://www.cleveland.com... [3]. http://calorielab.com... [4]. http://www.streetdirectory.com... [5]. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[6]http://quest.nasa.gov...[7]http://www.golfswing.com.au...[8]http://www.uml.edu...[9]http://sports.espn.go.com...[10] . http://www.bostonglobe.com...[11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[12] . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[13] . http://bleacherreport.com... |
11 | a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. "Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. "Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. "Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game."Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited "Fitness." Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball." Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA." US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. . |
2 | 1c8cf9ed-2019-04-18T14:12:18Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased. **As an aside, am actually a male... ;P** FrameworkMy opponent accepts my framework, and as such, we should follow and continue to value societal welfare.Rebuttals:Smoking Ban:My opponent essentially says a smoking ban is preferrable to raising taxes. Essentially, he points out all of the harms. I agree that all of these harms exist, and even mentioned most of them in my first round. My opponent is doing little more than assisting my case when he points these out. However, he gives no logical reason as to why a smoking ban is preferrable to increasing taxes. While it could obliterate smoking completely, there are quite a few harms I'd like to point out. However, my opponent never really explains this argument and why it is preferrable to maximize societal welfare.Harms to BusinessesThe lack of revenue from sales and production tax is a very important and relevant detriment to smoking bans. Instantaneously, the government doesn't receive the tax revenue from the millions who smoke. This would obviously be a detriment. It's an explicit harm to businesses. [1] However, with increasing taxation, they get *more* revenue from the people who continue smoking while also getting the benefit of those who choose to quit smoking because of high costs.Economic DetrimentThere's also demonstrable economic harms to smoking bans, which is why the corporations should be able to determine smoking policies themselves, as to fit with their economic stability. [2]Essentially, this argument is baseless, and hinges only on the fact (as I've also presented) that smoking is harmful. This doesn't necessitate a smoking ban, but rather an increase in taxation on the products which, by smoking, cause these detriments.No Reason:My opponent has a severe misinterpretation of the health effects in relation to consumption. He assumes that just because health effects are bad, people won't smoke. This is entirely and demonstrably false. Cross-apply my evidence from the CDC, which noted "Nearly 18 of every 100 U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (17.8%) currently smoke cigarettes. This means an estimated 42.1 million adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes." [3] This empirically proves that knowledge about harms =/= no smoking. The only effective way to prevent smoking without harms (as I've shown) is through increased taxation. We need bad things to be more expensive to increase revenue for those who don't mind the cost, and also to decrease the smoking population. Cigarettes are Bad:This was already addressed in his first contention. We should make taxes for bad things higher to prevent increased use, and create a regressive trend of smoking.ConclusionAgain, the misinterpretation here is that knowledge = lack of consumption. This has been shown false, and effectively refuted. Thusly, we choose the option that maximizes societal welfare; increased taxation on cigarettes.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://fee.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov... |
29 | 27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00003-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Refutations 1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands. 2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal. "According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. " This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate. 3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage. "Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant. " He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " "The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. " I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship. "Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. " Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship. Arguments 1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. 2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them. 3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U. S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair. 4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior. 5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round. 6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3]. My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now. I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.nationalreview.com... |
7 | 8b81b0bd-2019-04-18T16:20:44Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Students Should Be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School The Pro points to three main arguments to support the topic. Cellphones are great for the ease of students, gives students choice and responsibility, and provides all the benefits without the consequences. The problem with this attitude conveyed is cellphones are great for the ease of everyone. Substituting students to make that point is irrelevant. Ease of use for students may hold validity in the eyes of students, but does it in the eyes of others (as in anyone else except the student)?"As a result, many schools have developed strict no cell phone policies. Reconsideration regarding this powerful device and how it can be used in an educational setting should take place. Most of the world is poised to bring these devices into the realm of education. Innovative ways to approach the concept have already been presented.""It is important for adults, parents, and educators to be attuned to the ICT that have become a part of children's social and psychological lives. In doing so, there can be a positive influence on the revivification of these objects and their meanings. It should be incumbent upon educators that whatever content is taught should be done in such a way that has value and meaning to the learner. Considering how to use cell phones in education is one way to blend real life and school life to make learning more relevant, personal, and meaningful." -http://www.ncsu.edu...-Giving choice and responsibility for the use of a cellphone is the decision of the parent to make. Attempting to misconstrue that the school or the teaching staff suddenly is suppose to uphold this decision in your household is completely naive. The school a student attends has phones located in the office for ease of use and to prevent miss communication. I would love to carry around my favorite portable personal tablet/cellphone and use it with responsibility any where I please, but giving choice and responsibility in the hands of anyone requires them to have been taught proper manners and ethics. While the task of being at school is to learn and follow the curriculum and learn these important aspects is far more primary than you checking social media or texting your BFF. Additionally, it is far more critical you stay concentrated at the task at hand rather getting caught up in situations and gossip that float around an adolescence's mind which is still developing into adulthood.All the benefits without the consequences, spoken like a true adolescent, it is not meant to be condescending. This has been said by myself growing up and with my own children. How could you suggest that years of adults recognizing distractions from their own childhood and medical/educational studies should be disregarded? Let us expand on this a bit, If the student does lose track of this privilege (having a cellphone, is just that, a privilege in the hands of students who's primary focus is learning) he/she will completely be willing to not argue and whine that the teacher is taking a personal item? Again, the reason it should be prohibited is to avoid the disruption. The point is learning, having discipline for the use, and not using your cellphone while multi-tasking on gaining an education."Most school administrations regard cell phone use as disruptive and distracting, and have implemented policies that prohibits using them on school grounds. Cell phones are a disruption in school. Text messaging can be used to cheat on tests. Students who are text messaging are not able to give full attention to the lesson. If a student cell phone rings in class, it totally disrupts the class for a considerable period of time. Many cell phones are also camera phones. Camera phones present an invasion of privacy in the schools . One of the best ways we can protect the privacy of every student is to ban cell phones from school during the school day." - http://ezinearticles.com... -I will agree with the Pro, his argument is quite simple, and doesn't take into account much of anything except the need for the use of a cellphone. It is noble of you to mention the importance to communicate with your students/parents if schedules change, but school's have policies in place for the safety, security, and to maximize the point in which schools truest intentions are for...too be educated on primary subjects and preparing good habits for secondary schooling after high school.All and all, it is probably best you follow the policies for the use of the cellphone, because some schools will confiscate your phone and require a parent to come and have a conference to retrieve it based on the incident. I recently had to take part in such a situation personally, and let me tell you, the person - my child in reference, is learning how it used to be before children carried portable devices around and how communication worked prior to 2002. |
31 | e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Eating meat is good for your health My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies."Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5] "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case."The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren't much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com... |
34 | 55d46cb4-2019-04-15T20:24:24Z-00007-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity. Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined. Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of. Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity. The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, 'international practice in this field indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes'. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, 'places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind'. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: "The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law", EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf [2] ibid |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00006-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. |
20 | 3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00007-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Should we drink milk Milk may taste good, but imagine this, a cow drinking a frogs milk... |
48 | 933bdbc1-2019-04-18T11:31:43Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | 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 |
12 | 88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | birth control should be covered by insurance Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important. |
21 | 9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming. |
37 | 170f03aa-2019-04-18T16:59:36Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | phone use in the classroom Although schools have traditionally banned or limited cell phones in the classroom, 73% of Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers said their students use phones in the classroom or to complete assignments, according to a Pew Research Center study released in February. I think that students should be allowed to use phones in not only school but in the classroom. I also think that the pros out number the cons by a long shot. |
35 | 271b8702-2019-04-18T17:02:05Z-00000-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games do not Make Kids Violent Well, seeing as you have forfeited round 4, I don't have anything to say. Except for this; may the best person win. |
26 | dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. http://www.alternet.org... 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. |
7 | 146c9c8-2019-04-18T15:39:55Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Allowing prisoners to vote Here are some links to the rules. It is for ld of Lincoln-Douglas debate. http://www.nflonline.org... http://www.neisd.net.... (Page 9) 1: First let us see what everyday people have to say. -"People need to stop thinking about themselves Of course prisoners should have the right to vote! A convicted criminal or not, they are still members of our society. To say they no longer deserve a voice is not only inconsiderate but selfish. Give me one good reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote? I guarantee ever answer will be an selfish excuse. Just because their opinion may not align with yours, doesn't mean that it should be stripped from them. Prisoners are put under the protection of the government and therefore have the full right to be able to have a say on who protects them." -"YES They Should!!!!!! Some are good they just made a mistake, so why shouldn't they decide on their future when they come out?If they don't vote it would be very unfair. After all, they are human no matter what they have done they are still citizens. They have human rights and two wrongs doesn't make a right! If you do let them vote, when they come out they will probably not commit to a crime or break the law because they respect their prime minister! They have their rights and we have ours too! They should because its like saying you cant play this board game because you cheated in one 10 years ago!" -"YES In regards to the person's statement saying "they broke the law, therefore they don't deserve the law" argument... if that is the case, do you suggest that we don't provide them with lawyers, judges, jury, etc. in which to try and convict them? Your argument suggests that we should simply throw people in jail, swallow the key, and let them rot. This, while these people may violated human rights and law, deserve the equal right to be judged under our culturally unique system of law... and pay for their crimes dearly." Read more of what others have to say @ http://www.debate.org... 2: Here are top 10 reasons why inmates should be allowed to vote. A: "We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders... If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." B: "In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore " it is also too unjust to tolerate... And although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens " or nearly one in 13 African-American adults " are banned from voting because of these laws. In three states " Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia " that ratio climbs to one in five." C:"There are three potential constitutional bases for Congress's authority to enfranchise non-incarcerated offenders for federal elections : - Congress's supervisory power over federal elections, rooted in Article 1, Sec. 4; - Congress's enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and - Congress's enforcement power under Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment." D: "It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all 'voting qualification[s].' And it is equally plain that [New York Election Law] " 5-106 [which denies the vote to incarcerated felons and felons on parole] disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage. The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's 'wealth of persuasive evidence' that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny... includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of " 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it." E: "The Eighth Amendment 'succinctly prohibits 'excessive' sanctions,' and demands that 'punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense'... Thus, the states that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, both within the United States and in the world." F: "[T]he argument that allowing prisoners to vote would be costly and impractical is ethically unjustifiable. Similarly, the fact that prisoners lose many freedoms does not imply they should lose all their civil rights. Denying prisoners the right to vote is likely to undermine respect for the rule of law... Allowing prisoners to vote, by contrast, may strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good, thus promoting legally responsible participation in civil society." G: "I believe that the commission of a crime must have a tough and just consequence... I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again... Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process..." H: "People should not be barred from voting solely because they are unable to pay back their fines, fees and interest. If we truly want people convicted of felonies to re-engage with society, become rehabilitated, and feel a part of a broader community (thus creating incentives not to recidivate) then our State should do everything possible to re-incorporate these individuals into mainstream society. In terms of being a just and even handed society, it is not fair if thousands of people are unable to re-gain their voting rights because they are poor... People who are wealthy or have access to money are able to repay their financial debts and poor people (the vast majority of people who have felony convictions) are not. This is an unjust system." I: "Despite its initial attractiveness, the use of social contract theory to defend felon disenfranchisement is in fact specious. Under a regime of disenfranchisement, an individual who breaches the social contract continues to be bound by the terms of the contract even after being stripped of the ability to take part in political decisions. However, contract doctrine does not allow an injured party to force the breacher to perform its contractual duties without the injured party performing its own. The contract can be terminated or the injured party can accept the performance, but the injured party cannot simply pick and choose which terms will remain and which will not... Social contract theory and the objectives of punishment fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for the denial of one of the most fundamental rights to millions of citizens." J:"[In New York] ex-felons who are registered overwhelmingly register as Democrats. Of those discharge records that match to at least one voter file record, 61.5 percent match only to Democratic voter records. In contrast, 25.5 percent match only to voter records with no affiliation or an affiliation with a minor party, while 9 percent match only to Republican voter records... ...[R]egistered ex-felons in New Mexico tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat: 51.9 percent match to only registered Democrats, 18.9 percent match to only registered Republicans, 21.7 percent match to only individuals registered neither as Democrats nor Republicans, and 7.5 percent match to multiple individuals who affiliate with different parties..." http://felonvoting.procon.org... 3: Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice http://wwww.idebate.org... 4: During 2002 Canada gave prisoners the right to vote. On January 4, 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that Washington State prisoners should be allowed to vote to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, as African Americans make up 3% of Washington's general population, but are 28% of its prison population. The lawsuit that was ruled on contended that as non whites make up a large percentage of the prison population, the State law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal as it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. The Sentencing Project estimates that due to their legal status, 5.3 million Americans who would otherwise be entitled to vote do not have that right. laws barring prisoners and parolees from voting violate the Voting Rights Act. http://www.change.org... Comment,?, or concern? |
13 | ea61b0fc-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00077-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Algae from coal ties the biofuel to fossil fuels "Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "capturing CO2 from power plants ties algal fuel production to fossil fuels. If we switch to solar energy, where will the algal fuel producers get their CO2 from?" |
28 | 318b36b2-2019-04-18T19:09:34Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | It should be legal to murder prostitutes " The resolution of this debate is "It should be legal to murder prostitutes." Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, "It should be legal to kill prostitutes." All murder is killing. Some killing is murder. Since my opponent affirms the resolution "it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes", he affirms this in ALL cases. If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder. There is no way around this. "Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution." The resolution is "it should be legal to murder prostitutes" not "there is an instance where killing prostitutes should be legal." Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes. My opponent argues that "it should be legal to murder prostitutes", and therefore asserts that ALL murdering of prostitutes should be legal. "Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour." Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition. "Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people." Again, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. And it follows that my opponents elaborate example involving professional hitmen is irrelevant and does not hold any weight in this argument. To conclude, I realize my opponent still has one more round left, so to be fair, I request that he does not make any new arguments or definitions unless they are in direct rebuttal of my argument. If my opponent makes any new arguments, they should be ignored by the voters. And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well. |
1 | e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should teachers union be abolished The teachers in Chicago did indeed strike. As I stated earlier in my argument a strike is normally a last resort and is a result of a breakdown in negotiations which is exactly what happened in Chicago. [1] Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. My opponent has stated that "In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired." My opponent is correct in stating that firing teachers in New York is costly. I will attack this argument making two points. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? With regard to my opponent"s final point with regard to salary and negative stigma, salaries in most professions will vary depending on cost of living within different geographical areas. However, when considering the level of entry and education needed to become a teaching professional there are easier alternatives that can earn a person with the same level of education. In fact, approximately 20% of teacher quit the profession with two years. [3] According to a survey conducted by The National Center for Education Statistics "61% cited more professional working conditions in their new careers verses their time teaching. That same group said their workload was 65% more manageable outside of teaching and they were 65% more likely to better balance their personal and professional life after leaving their teaching career." [3] There is no denying that being a teaching professional is a difficult career. In my opinion it makes it even more difficult when the general population has no idea of how difficult and challenging the career is. Especially when politicians who have never been in a classroom setting wish to dictate exactly how to educate students and wishes to terminate teachers as being ineffective when there is no concrete way to judge exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection. I fail to see any argument that my opponent has made thus far that shows how abolishing the teachers union will have a positive impact on the education received by America's students. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://schools.nyc.gov... [3]http://teaching.monster.com... |
13 | 8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00077-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear energy Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels |
24 | 6abc07e8-2019-04-18T14:04:35Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | lowering driving age to 15 Lowering the minimum age for getting a driver's license wold greatly increase the number of accidents and deaths on the road. People aged 15-24 account for only 14% of the U.S. population, but are responsible for 30% of the costs of motor vehicle injuries. Teen drivers are three times more likely than those over 20 to be in a fatal crash. The perceived "responsibility" of a new generation does not mean they will become better drivers at a younger age. http://www.cdc.gov... |
39 | 84b4dab3-2019-04-18T17:37:35Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage Should be Abolished I forfeit. I see no point in asking for another lap when the odour emitting from the horse's carcass is driving the spectators away. I have missed the point on occasions and have digressed into irrelevancies on others. I think if I had adequately prepared my argument, I would have a much stronger case, possibly a winning one. Nevertheless, I wish to apologise for my diluted arguments and offer congratulations to my opponent for bettering me in this debate. |
6 | 1b21a2f2-2019-04-18T15:02:36Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Free University Education Thank you Pericles :)Cost of universityMy opponent's main argument is that the cost of university disproportionately harms the poor, and hence university education isn't "generally available and equally accessible to all."But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans.Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true.'My opponent has stated that college is for only the brightest in our society to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, such as that of a physician, lawyer, architect, etc., while himself admitting that nearly half of people (not sure where he's referring to, though) have attended/are attending/will attend college according to current rates.'I do not contradict myself, because the former is what university should be and what it was designed for, and the latter is what university has actually turned out to be.Until 1997, university was just for those who required specialist education to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, but when Tony Blair became Prime Minister in the UK, he instigated a 'student drive' that wanted 50% of young people to attend university (1).So the concept of university education being the norm is a relatively new one, and it has had negative consequences - namely regarding the over-saturation of the graduate market. There are simply too many graduates.'My opponent has stated that making college free is unfair on those who don't attend college. This is a self-disproving argument, though, as, if college were free, these people who don't attend college would be able to remedy the issue by, you guessed it, going to college. For free.'Well yes, but as I have made very clear, we do not want everyone to go to university! Only 27% of jobs require a degree, so the last thing we need to be doing is encourage everyone to go to university by subsidising it.Value of universityMy opponent argues that those who do drugs and party excessively will be filtered out of the system. I agree with this, but generally those who don't take university seriously are only kicked out at the end of the year (i.e when they fail the year), by that time two things have happened:1. £9000 has been wasted2. From the government's perspective, they have lost one year's worth of tax revenue from a person partying at university instead of working.So, although those who don't take university seriously will eventually be kicked out, it is better to have university fees so:a) They are less likely to attend a university in the first placeb) They will be less likely to waste £9000 if they have to foot the bill.'And countries where college is free generally have a higher population percentage with degrees, so obviously most people don't behave as my opponent has suggested.'The reason for that is simply that more people go to university in countries with free university - I still maintain that more people would use university as a three-year party.Benefits of university?'My opponent has stated that attending an absolutely free university that only serves to widen your options is a bad thing somehow. He seems to believe that this will decrease the size of the pool from which countries draw unskilled labor. It won't. 'Except most graduates don't think like that. If someone has spent three years extra in education, being told they will get a graduate job, they would naturally feel entitled to a graduate job and will often refuse to work in other jobs.Moreover, they would generally only want to work in a job that accords with their degree (for example, a law graduate would only want to work as a lawyer), so instead it seems that a degree actually narrows one's prospects - at least from a psychological perspective.'those who don't manage to land one will just end up doing lower-paying jobs'Even if graduates do decide to do this - if they are just going to go into low-paying jobs eventually then why shouldn't they just go straight into them after high-school? If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the £27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted.'Plus, these people with low-paying jobs will have a degree that gives them increased potential to advance their status and makes for an educated, intelligent, well-informed populace.'But if these people want to 'advance their status' then they will not be committed to doing the low-paying job they are doing now, also, if people doing low-payed jobs are always looking for a chance to get a better job, then any resembelance of stability will be lost from these industries.Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does. Evidence for this is how employers generally value experience over qualifications.Universities, on the other hand, only really cater to educate someone in a specific field, instead of the holistic education that is needed for a well-functioning member of society. Moreover, the anarchism that is rife in student communities can even foster a desire to not conform to society.'My opponent says that going to college breeds a sense of entitlement, and that graduates won't want to work low-paying jobs. Some will have to, though, if, as my opponent said, there is only a set number of academic careers.'Or, as is shown by the high-levels of graduate unemployment (2), they will just resort to claiming benefits until their 'dream job' turns up.'This is true, except for people who can't afford to pay for college.'These people do not exist, because there is such a thing as a student loan.'Plus, if education is free, this whole point can be disregarded because *everyone can attend college.* They don't have to stay at a disadvantage if they don't want to.'And we definitely do not want everyone to go to college. Considering that only 27% of jobs require an associate degree, it is economic madness for a government to spend £27000 per person to be educated for a job that likely does not exist.__________________________________________________________________________________________(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) http://www.independent.co.uk... |
48 | a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | marriage age should be lowered well a lot of people should know that divorce is an option but if you are willing to make a sacrifice and marry who ever they want if they love the person that they want to marry. I am pretty sure that younger kids will make good decisions about using protection and being safe and it is also up to the parents to decide if they want their kid to have a good safe happy life. I feel that I cant be happy if I am not married. people deserve a chance not just being judged before they even get a chance |
34 | 19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Prefer Pro's definitions a. First of all there are many definitions for multitude of different words, including "impact" b. Con's definition is unapplicable because if you actully go that web site (. http://www.merriam-webster.com......) you will find that the definition has to do with th ehitting of the ball as in baseball, which does not apply to social networks c. Con's definition is also false because it uses the word "impact" within the deffinition which goes against the rules of Eng. language d. Pro's definition is best of both because it defines what the impact does: "impact" produces an effect; and it defines what that "impact" could be "direct and indirect" and my opponent has conceded the fact that my definition is correct when he stated "I will urge the voters to use both definitions of impact" 2. I agree to my job of proving a positive impact, and because the reolution call for "impact" which could be direct and indirect, my job is to prove either of the possible types of impacts 3. Social netw. web. have a positive impact on the US, because the impact could be direct or indirect as Con conceded, the perception and the use of the tool is an indirect effect because without the tool thee would be no use of it, and thus it has an indirect impact a. For example, my opponent mentioned "gun", the thing is that the sight of the weapon alone incites violence Homer: "The blade itself incites to violence. " and thus the weapon itself has an indirect impact on the people, also when someone gets killed by the weapon, it is the weapon that killed, sure the blame lies with the killer, but the weapon aided the kill so it has an impact 4. Also because the debate asks for "on balance" which mean on average, I urge you to vote in consideration of both negative and positive impacts 5. Lastly on the "impact" debate, my opponent concedes this debate, when he acnowledges some possible impacts, the fact that he argued impact at all proves that there could be a debate of both positive and negative impacts == Onto my opponent's ans. to my case: 1. I agree to your evaluation and thank you for not making this a definition type debate 2. Prefer Pro's definition 3. Econ. a. My opponent's argument is not exactly true and unaplicable to social networks for a few key reasons 1. . http://www.usatoday.com... - This article is talking about how the newspaper circulation has been aroding for the past 20 years, during which social netwoking websites have been almost unexistent if not completely unexistent, - Further more, its aknowledging that these newspapers have been losing their custumers because of both TV and Internet Usage, not social networking specifically -Finally ask yourself, if not for the social networking which account for much advertising, where would those bussinesses be, the key thing is that to put an ad into a newspaper or journal, is expensive, to put it onto Social networking websites or internet in general, is almost free, thus it encourages these small businesses to advertise which ultimatlely helps them out and because of these businesses our economy thrives -Finally sites like LinkedIN help people get jobs, it is a bussiness oriented social network, which also hires people and in December 07 it got over 400% more visitors, which means that there was net benefit in social networking, because way less people went away from newspapers than people got onto social networks, my sorce for the increase is Wikipedia, and although its not the best website, the statistic is correct as i have checked -Prefer my answer because I have qualified how the economy has improved with statistics unlike my opponent b. The economy didn't get worse because of social networking websites, if my opponent would be correct than the newspapers, where the advertising was before would have had the same impact as social networking websites have now -Also the fact that newspapers are still there and TV plus the social networks, meansthat there is more competition involved and competion is key to a succesfull economy -My opponent claims that the fact that money is congested in social networks is bad, however the fact is "Eager estimates there will be as many as 250,000 sites that call themselves social networks within a year, compared with about 850 today. " USA, Today c. The fact that my opponent stated "If it did get better" proves that he is not sure of the result and thus it means that Pro has more of a chance to be correct -USA TODAY : "Total ad spending worldwide, by comparison, is expected to grow 4.6%, to $653.9 billion this year, says Universal McCann. " This is the billions I am talking about, the economy needs money to flow around to do well, when the money doesn't move, meaning it's not spent, the economy soars and becomes volitile -The principal fact Pro is claiming is that the economy is boosted by the social networks -Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat. Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad, which is what the resolution asks Pro to answer, and thus sure a few people get hurt, but ask yourself, don't the people get hurt in democracy, yes, but is democracy on balance bad? no == Bullying: Firstly, Johicle, is there a website link to the PC Magazine Online evidence and the Jessica Groppe evidece, because i could not find it, I am not denying its validity, I just want to read it 1. Think logically, why would you be a friend with someone who bullies you? really, if one is bullied, one has the controls to block that person, and with the networks getting so much safer, the bullie's message might not even get to you 2. UCLA study, shows that people get bullied offline (85%), so if they are bullied offline the fact that they might be bullied online shows that there is no net impact 3. UCLA study also shows that 75% of the kids showed positive feedback, while only 6-7% got negative response, and because the resolution calls for "on balance", average, 75 and 7 obviously prove that on average the impact is positive 4. UCLA stdu also shows that the problem is declining about bulliying == Onto the sexual predators . http://www.nytimes.com... 1. "Those concerns about predators and stranger danger have been overblown," she said. "There's been some confusion about what kids are actually doing online. Mostly, they're socializing with their friends, people they've met at school or camp or sports. " This proves that there is more positive than negative impact andso Pro wins 2. Because Constates a negative impact proves that the impact could be neg. or pos. which cancels his first arg. == Onto Terrorism 1. Good parent relations? Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents, and there is not evidence showing that without social netwokring those relation would get hurt, I mean think critically, without talking to your friends online, you would just talk offline, so there is no trade off in the relations 2. What impact do those realations have and what do they have to do with the war on terrorism, people still realize that terrorism is bad regardless of what they think about their parents 3. Although parents might say they were way more respectful, they are forgetting the fact that they weren't, if you ask your gradnparents they have the same opinion of your parent as your parents of u 4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins Democracy: 1. Although sure there were some hate speeches, the fact is is that social nets. helped civic engagement= democracy www. marketingcharts. |
42 | 9de8e3b-2019-04-18T19:57:30Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Abortion should be allowed At the top I would just like to say that I have won this debate without needing to post a R3. Throughout the debate opponent has consistently avoided any analysis of my arguments, frequently picking out incidental points while avoiding the overall structure. He has continued this trend into R3. I have won this debate because: 1)My opponent never demonstrated the morally relevant factor that is the cause of a fetus lacking a right to life. He never disputed that this was his burden of proof, so if he hasn't don't this, we must accept that a fetus has the same rights as an adult. 2)My opponent never disputed my argument that the right to life trumps all other rights. This means that if the fetus has a right to life then it outweighs a woman's right to body and abortion is unethical. 3)My opponent never disputed that abortion is a justice issue and thus third parties have a duty to get involved. 4)Finally, my opponent never engaged my argument about the magnitude of the possible evil of abortion overwhelming the possibility of error. He merely challenged my math (my math was actually correct) and says I am "oversimplifying." In fact it is he who is oversimplifying. I will go into this in more detail later. Together these points demonstrate that I have won this debate. These points were all more or less ignored by my opponent. These points demonstrate that a fetus has a right to life, that the right to life makes abortion unethical, that abortion is a justice issue that warrants third party intervention, and that even if we aren't certain that abortion is unethical we should err on the side of caution. Now I will briefly address my opponent's arguments, although I contend that it is not necessary for me to win this debate. I will use my opponent's numbering. 1)You need to engage in analysis of how depriving a fetus of the right to life because of a poor quality future is different from depriving a toddler of the right because of a poor quality future. Unless you do this, there is no difference and you are justifying murdering someone if they don't have a good life. You do not explicitly do this, but you seem to imply the being born is the morally relevant difference. However, being born is just a change of location (inside/outside the womb) and it is difficult to see how the change of location is morally relevant. You might say that the difference is that post-birth the woman's right to body isn't a factor, however, I have already shown that the right to life outweighs right to body, so pre-birth deprivation of right to life is still unethical. 2)First of all, you have no idea that I "feel so strongly and believe a fetus is a human." This isn't even an argument; it only amounts to questioning my convictions. I am simply arguing to promote deeper understanding of the issue and the joy of competition. My convictions don't necessarily relate to my arguments. I cal a fetus a "thing" because my future argument does not necessarily exclude non humans- the point is that the use of one word doesn't hurt my argument. 3)Toddlers and adults do not "have a future no matter what happens." If a toddler or an adult gets killed, they do not have a future. Adults, toddlers and fetuses all have futures, barring loss of life. His second 1) The fetus may rely on the woman's body, but that doesn't invalidate its rights. Having a body that can function independently is not a prerequisite to rights. If that were true, then anyone on life support does not have a right to life. Anyone in need of a heart or kidney transplant does not have a right to life (because their body is not functioning independently, it isn't functioning properly at all). Furthermore, very few adults are fully independent. Nearly all adults rely on other people, whether its farmers who produce grain or their employers/employees. This dependency isn't a physical dependency, but you haven't provided any reason why a direct physical dependency is more morally relevant. The fetus still has a future, and so it is still ethically equal to murder to deprive the fetus of a future. Rebuttal to closing statement: Here I will address the issue I touched on in my #4 from this round. My mention of Hitler/Stalin was not an oversimplification that ignored gray area. In fact, the purpose of that argument was designed to deal with gray area! The argument is an analysis of the factors involved with abortion and the conclusion tells how we should treat gray area or uncertainty. I DID NOT COMPAR PRO-CHOICE SUPPORTERS TO HITLER AND STALING. This is a misrepresentation on the part of my opponent. This is my exact quote: "If the legal system is wrong, we are killing people on a magnitude comparable to Hitler and Stalin." No one is being compared to mass murderers. I provided a CONDITIONAL statement describing the actions of SOCIETY. Finally, I am embarrassed over my opponent's final lines. I do not know what insult I "hurled" at my opponent. Quite frankly, I would be incredibly surprised if my opponent's charge was correct. If any judges or my opponent finds one of these alleged insults in this debate, please post it and the round on the comments. Otherwise, I am innocent until proven guilty. AGAIN: VOTER NEUTRALITY |
10 | f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.First, it is important to note though that Con drops my entire case. At this point in the debate, it is too late for him to respond to it as that would constitute making new arguments. So, that means the entire debate comes down to whether the risks of "side-effects" Con mentions outweighs the proven efficacy of vaccines (and whether it outweighs that not vaccinating leads to the spread of disease and the onset of outbreaks). I will endeavor to show that it doesn't outweigh.Secondly, Con just posts links, he doesn't post into the round the substance of those links. That is a blatant attempt to avoid the character limits of the round, and unacceptable. Nothing that has not been explicitly stated in the round should be evaluated. That means that the so-called studies Con's references cannot be evaluated, since no quotes from them were posted here. But, even so, I will address the content of the articles anyway."Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionablewebsite, I say this because it's all over the web."This is a blatant ad populum fallacy. Just because a lot of people say something, that doesn't make it true. For instance, most people during Galileo's lifetime said that the solar system was Geocentric, even though it was actually Heliocentric. But, if we are going to use ad populum fallacies to make arguments, we should appeal to the most informed group of individuals, i.e. medical doctors. Most major medical organizations and doctors actually support vaccinations, and that says far more about immunizations that the "web" does. [1, 2]Moreover, of Con's sources don't give information about the sample sizes or reliability of any of the studies they cite. The Health Impact News link lists 49 sources that show the harmfulness of vaccines, yet the vast majority of those sources don't even mention vaccines or immunizations. Of those that do, they suggest that vaccines bear either slight risks for autism or cause harm by spurring brain encephalization in children. Yet, according to The Encephalitis Society, "While vaccines are much safer than actually having the disease, they, like all medicines can carry a small risk of adverse reaction. The majority of adverse reactions are very mild, but can, very rarely include post-vaccination Encephalitis. The risk of developing vaccine-related Encephalitis is extremely small in comparison to the health risks associated with the diseases that vaccines prevent. Importantly, the data indicates that vaccines are in the order of 1,000 to 100,000 times safer than running the risk of contracting the disease." [3] Additionally, "Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism in children does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. And a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that 'the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism.' CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism rates in children. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to autism as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism." [4]Con's other links suggest that vaccines cause lymphoma or leukemia. Studies actually show no evidence for the notion that vaccines cause lymphoma: "A link between SV40 and NHL is biologically plausible because SV40 causes hematological malignancies in laboratory rodents. However, detection of SV40 DNA in human NHL tumors has not been confirmed by other laboratories. Casting doubt on an association between SV40 and NHL, follow-up studies of recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines have not revealed these individuals to be at increased risk of NHL. Furthermore, 2 recent case-control studies of NHL documented only infrequent SV40 antibody reactivity among NHL cases, and the prevalence of SV40 antibodies was similar in cases and controls." [5] Regarding leukemia, "there is some evidence suggesting that hepatitis B vaccination does not cause childhood leukaemia. During the period 1991 to 1998, when the rate of hepatitis B vaccination in American 2-year-olds was climbing from zero to over 80%, there was no corresponding increase in childhood leukaemia. According to the National Cancer Institute, 'Childhood leukemias appeared to increase in incidence in the early 1980s, with rate in the preceding years at fewer than 4 cases per 100,000. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.8 cases per 100,000.'" [6]Perhaps even more strikingly, one of the sources Con himself cites is in favor of vaccination, and reads in part: "These troubling statistics show that the failure to vaccinate children endangers both the health of children themselves as well as others who would not be exposed to preventable illness if the community as a whole were better protected. Equally troubling, the number of deliberately unvaccinated children has grown large enough that it may be fueling more severe outbreaks. In a recent survey of more than 1,500 parents, one quarter held the mistaken belief that vaccines can cause autism in healthy children, and more than one in 10 had refused at least one recommended vaccine." [7]"So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something?"This is an interesting hypothetical, but it doesn't really hold up. Most side-effects of vaccines are minor, and being inflicted by a guaranteed minor side-effect while ensuring that you avoid life-threatening illnesses like measles is completely worth it. And, more importantly, side-effects of vaccines are incredibly rare, and so, for parents looking at the cost-benefits, you have an extremely low risk of mostly minor side-effects compared with the danger of contract serious diseases. It's a no-brainer."In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour."This is a kind of ad hominem, and has nothing to do with the debate. But, for the record, I did research the topic, and came to the conclusion that vaccines were net beneficial, so I did consider the possibility that they weren't. Furthermore, Con talks about the importance of freedom, but what freedom is death? When we fail to vaccinate our children and that results in their death or injury, we are denying them their freedom, and, to use Con's word, we treat them like "cattle" not has human beings. The effectiveness of vaccines is an objective fact, not subjective--and Con doesn't do much to rebut this."[Y]ou only cited things from one source mostly"Actually, I cited 8 different sources. Each link led to a separate page, and each page referenced separate sources in its bibliography. Besides, quality should be preferred to quantity, and Con never contests that his primary source was riddled with errors and that some of his own sources supported vaccines. Con even writes: "I admit that the website may not be the more trusted."1 - http://www.immunizeforgood.com...2 - http://www.pbs.org...3 - http://www.encephalitis.info...4 - http://www.who.int...5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6 - http://www.cdc.gov...7 - http://www.scientificamerican.com... |
46 | 877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00002-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality laws. I'll give you a real debate. invite me to a new one and then I'll get serious |
17 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | 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 |
30 | 8200d79f-2019-04-18T18:01:27Z-00007-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime DebateI believe that concealed carry laws decrease violent crime in the United States of America. My opponent must explain the opposite. RulesNo trolling or semantics. |
50 | 3fdb3710-2019-04-18T12:55:31Z-00001-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Con has not presented a counter. I will judge the debate as my victory based on Con's submission. To argue against Con is to engage in back to back sub-arguments, and to complete the sub-arguments in full will spur an opinion-based vote, rather than a vote based on the debaters. In other words, Con calls out for voters to win the debate for him but cannot debate me himself. Con has lost because he submits to my argument. Whatever the course of this debate, it doesn't void my clear victory. Con has a few more chances to counter and I will respond if that's the case; if he doesn't counter, I won this debate in Round 3. Any intelligent person agrees. |
9 | a6993c62-2019-04-18T18:20:19Z-00004-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Dress codes for public schools "I'm against school uniforms simply because a lack of school uniforms isn't what's causing all the problems. As George Carlin once said: "We don't have time for rational solutions."" School uniforms are being used as a solution for all school problems. How exactly is wearing a uniform going to stop teenagers from acting in appropriate, skip class, yell at teachers, smoke or drink? When you are forcing children and teens to all be the same they are going to retaliate in some way. Behavior does not come from someone's clothing. It comes from a person environment. Also, making students all wear the same clothes will teach them to be followers and not leaders. How are teens and children supposed to learn to be their own person and stand up for what they believe if they are forced to conform? All of these children will be scared to voice their opinion and go with the crowd. The costs of the school uniforms are much more expensive than just a polo and kakis. Most school uniforms are embroidered which add extra expenses onto them. Also, as children grow, new uniforms must be purchased. The main time children grow is between their elementary and middle school years. Additional alterations and even completely new uniforms would have to be purchased. You also mention how school uniforms take less time to pick out in the morning. That is true picking out clothes for school does take time when there are so many choices but it will not be any faster when someone forgets to wash their uniforms and now they are stuck rushing and late to classes. Students who are allowed to dress freely are able to choose from an array of clothes not just 2 or 3 set outfits. Teenagers do not want to listen to rules because they feel as if they are adults and should not have to take direction from anyone. They will find their way around wearing the uniforms or transferring them to make them more comfortable or flattering. Girls will cut their skirts and boys will untuck their shirts and there is no way of stopping this. Then the school will have to focus on mandating the teenagers about how to wear their uniforms and school policy. Time will be taken out of class to reprimand these students. Here is an example of these such teenagers: http://www.bravotv.com... Here is a group of teenagers all going to the top prep schools in NYC all requiring them to wear uniforms. These students all drink, smoke, party and sneak around. Obviously these uniforms have no effect on their behavior. If school is not about fashion then why is making all students look the same such a top priority? Maybe some students learn better and can focus when they are comfortable? How many people show up to take the SAT's or ACT's wearing a polo and kakis? |
12 | 3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill. |
49 | 75e67d5-2019-04-18T14:32:04Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan! 1. How it worksI'm not from the U.S. so correct me if I'm wrong but these US providers of traffic lights from what you say seem to be like the Private Parking Companies in the U.K. such as "UK Parking Control - UKPC" who issue tickets on privately owned land even though they are not backed explicitly by law (a grey area of law), and because many people can't tell whether they were issued by the council or police they often believe they must pay. Such companies can make millions each year by managing one or two car parks, and are often called cowboys because they wait to pounce on someone for leaving their car unattended for a second even to help someone who's collapsed [1]. Should you pay speeding, red light fines or any other fine if you don't have to? I don't believe you should pay if you are tricked in some way, or given a ticket unfairly. But I suspect the US providers of red light and speed cameras are not as shifty as you make them out to be. I have taken the following extract from a source of yours:"Overall, people like them: In a 2011 poll conducted by the insurance institute, two-thirds of drivers in 14 big cities with cameras expressed support for them. And last November, voters in Longview, Wash., and Pohatcong, N.J., rejected ballot measures to remove the cameras" [2]The cameras are not just a revenue raiser, they reduce the number of serious accidents, though it should be noted an increased number of accidents have occured due to drivers braking harshly to avoid getting a ticket. However furthur extracts below from the same source as above show the cameras are managed in a fair way."State legislation typically sets the ground rules for the use of the cameras, and then cities negotiate the specifics of the deal with the camera vendors. The vendors, which include American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems, install the cameras and generally charge communities a flat fee for camera rental each month""The camera shoots video of the offender and sends it to analysts at the camera company for closer examination. If the analysts think the situation merits a ticket, they forward the video to local law enforcement agents, who review it again. Law enforcement officers have the final say about whether or not a driver receives a ticket"If you are captured breaking the law on a video belonging to an official provider, which you can even view after committing an offence, you should pay. There is no good reason why someone other than an emergency vehicle should go through a red light. Drivers have a responsibility to keep their self safe, their passengers safe and other drivers safe via being medically and physically fit, not being distracted and not exceeding the speed limit etc. Apparently the yellow light have been shortened to increase violations and profit at the expense of causing more accidents. But on roads with limits of 25mph they last for 3 seconds, and at 55mphlimits they last for 5 seconds, see extract belowYellow light times will be increased from 3 seconds to 3.4 seconds on roads with speed limits of 25 miles per hour and increased from 5 to 5.5 seconds on roads with speed limits of 55 miles per hour. [2]I've done some smple caluclations, when travelling at 25mph (11.176m per sec) your car will travel 33.53m in 3 seconds. Your overall stopping will be between 12m and 23m (20mph - 30mph). When travelling at 55mph (24.59m per sec) your car will travel 122.94m in 5 seconds. Your overall stopping distance will be between 53m and 73m (50mph - 60mph). So, if you drove at a speed that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear and only go on at a yellow light if it appears after you have crossed the stop line or when you are so close to it that stopping might cause an accident, you wouldn't have a ticket, or an accident. Since you have recieved a ticket which you say was due to driving too fast then you have not taken responsibility and should pay. 2. Reasons you don't respond to these tickets The people who decide whether you should have a ticket or not after reviewing the video or photos will know if you've not paidbecause it will be held on a computer, and I'm sure you will recieve a number of letters or phonecalls reminding you if you haven't. Also video/photo evidence is reliable, and is reviewed by the police. I don't believe someone should not pay just because someone else could take their car, get caught on camera speeding and return the car, as people should be responsible for their own car but anyway this is not something that happened to you as you say you sped.The time length of yellow lights is being increased, and red light cameras are being removed in areas where low violations occured before the installations due to causing more accidents. This shows that safety is their main concern.3. SafetyThough more accidents have occured when red light cameras have been introduced, it is due to drivers inability to anticipate, and drive at an appropiate speed, so they are having to make split second decisions to brake or not at interesctions with lights designed for the speed limit, which is something they wouldn't need to do if they simply followed the law. If you accidentally go through a red light due to being tired, upset, angry, feeling unwell, distracted by kids in the back seat etc then you should have taken measures to prevent that. Unfortunately I can't read the letter my oppoent has provided as the writing is too small, I ask my opponent to provide a link to this. It would be great to read what it says about a formula to ensure motorist safety and adequate time to stop safely. I'd like to know why you think "traffic cams violate physics which must be there to actually prove you were speeding, as seen in the letter"Con does explain that it unlikely for anyone to be punished if they choose to ignore a speeding fine and this is a reason for not paying, but I believe that if you make a mistake you should pay for it, because if you don't accept you've done something seriously wrong like running a red light then you may end up killing yourself, killing others, or injurying yourself or others. Since the cameras operate fairly, there is no good reason not to pay.sources:[1] http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk...[2] http://www.usatoday.com... |
19 | ea2e1a62-2019-04-18T19:39:51Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal. My opponent's arguments will be addressed below. Paragraph 1: "Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual." 1. How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly. 2. My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption. Paragraph 2: "Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument." 1. My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different. 2. Again, my opponent makes an assumption that I said that marriage should be based on love and nothing more. Even if I had said that, my argument differentiating the merits of gay marriage and polygamous marriage does not collapse or discredit my position that gay marriage should be legal, and certainly not inherently. 3. I also did not base the idea of marriage "off of" economics. I simply listed reasons that people have used to be opposed to polygamous marriage that cannot also be used to be opposed to gay marriage. I also did not claim it was MY position; rather, I said that "One can plausibly argue that..". However, my original claim still stands: Gay marriage must be evaluated and considered on its own merits, not on the merits of a seemingly endless variety of paranoid possibilities. Paragraph 3: "The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. " 1. My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." ). 2. I understand that my opponent is arguing that animals who engage in homosexual activities are probably pan-sexual - the desire to have sex regardless of the partner's gender. While it is true that not every sexual act has a reproductive function, some scientists have also proposed that being gay may serve its own evolutionary purpose - it could be a way to strengthen bonds. As proposed by biologist Marlene Zuk, gay individuals could contribute to the gene pool of their community by nurturing their relatives' young without diverting resources by having their own offspring. Regardless of the explicit reason, the fact still exists that homosexual animals exist in nature. 3. My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response. Paragraph 4: "Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this." 1. My opponent said that older people should still be able to marry because organs necessary for reproduction exist. He solidifies his position by saying "it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children". This implies that reproduction ability should be a prerequisite for marriage, which still means that straight people who are medically unable to have children (perhaps they're missing an organ - maybe it had to be removed or due to a defect?) should not be allowed to marry, under this philosophy. 2. Regarding natural law in relation to homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage, natural law is premised on an observation of nature and homosexuality clearly exists within both human and animal nature. Paragraph 5: "I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies." 1. If my opponent claims that two married people do not have to have sex - only the possibility to have sex has to exist, I will assume that my opponent is again trying to say that straight people can reproduce while gay people cannot through sex. This weak argument was disputed above. Affirmative Burden: "My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. " It is sad that I could still be "forced to negate" if I don't clearly state my position as to why gay marriage should be legal, regardless of the fact that I've argued all of your contentions. Please, let me be more clear. Gay marriage should be legal because gay people should be allowed to marry as long as straight people are allowed to marry. I believe that they should be afforded this same right because the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution states: "No state shall .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gay people under marriage laws is unconstitutional. Since there are many arguments against gay marriage which, as we have seen from above, are really about homosexuality at their core, it is important to argue the merits of those as well. This is a complicated and controversial issue and all sides need to be carefully considered. |
40 | 15af8213-2019-04-18T13:14:15Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | death penalty for serious crimes I. Our Unalienable Rights A serious criminal offense may involve the criminal attacking the rights of another person, and therefore the criminal is not entitled to the normal rights of a citizen. Also, I am not limiting this to the US. II. Cost "The costs of a death row inmate are far higher than the costs of any other prisoner. Seattle University found that it costs $1 million more for a death penalty case than a case where a life sentence is the verdict. This is because of the costs for defense, prosecution, multiple trials, etc" The cost for defense and prosecution depends on the status of the criminal and the victim. Also, a prisoner with a life-sentence takes up resources such as food, water, electricity for his life in the prison, which is costly as well. With death penalty, there will be less need of prisons, and therefore less prison guards, so policemen could spend that time pursuing new criminals rather than taking care of the captured ones. III. Innocents "No matter how good the defense is, we can never know for sure if someone is innocent or guilty. 144 people have been released from death row after being proven innocent" It is also possible that after the death verdict being announced, forged evidence is presented to save the criminal and they get saved. Also, the social prejudice of being a former criminal still has to be endured by the person which can be disturbing to the mind. People mayn't even want to give the person any job in their workplace. IV. Racial Prejudice "While some may argue that the severity of the crime you commit is a large factor in your sentence, race also takes hand in the verdict." We must make law education better and change the mindset that race matters. Also, severity of the crime could be measured in number of people affected, such as mass-murderer, bank robbery etc, or whether the victim is alive or dead. And anyways, racial prejudice can result in life imprisonment of black people, and the biased media would show that there are more black inmates than white. V. It Doesn't Provide Closure "Many of those for the death penalty provide the argument that it gives closure to the victim's family and helps the coping process. In fact, only about 2.7% relevant cases bring closure [8] because the aspect of revenge was later contemplated by the families." What more revenge could you have than death? If you mean by family of the criminal, revenge can also happen due to life imprisonment or even a 30 day jail term. "In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the remaining culprit Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. Only 15% of Boston residents wanted him to be executed. [9] In another story, two parents who lost their 8-year-old son urged against it in an open letter." There could be a public poll for the death penalty, and the judicial system could be made democratic. Death penalty could also be given depending whether the defendant is okay with it or not. If the victim wants to give death penalty to the criminal, then it should be on the judge's discretion whether to give death penalty or not.' In the punishment of imprisonment, there is a chance that the criminal may escape before his sentence. Also, it increases the chance for discrimination as politicians get a less strict sentence and a poor black man gets a longer sentence. With death penalty, there is no varying degree of punishment. Also, death penalty should not be given when there is inconclusive evidence. Only when the evidence is concrete and the defendant lacks strong points should death penalty be given. |
31 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | 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; |
27 | 22222c8b-2019-04-18T17:32:10Z-00007-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | The US Should Have Better Gun Control I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower. |
21 | a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | global climate change is human caused Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped. It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before. Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily. This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming. Why don't we define Global Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: •Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun •Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. ,changes in ocean circulation) •Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming. |
Subsets and Splits