query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
10 | 76b548ad-2019-04-18T19:22:52Z-00003-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Most Children are parasites This is alot more challenging than I thought it would be, but that's OK; I like a challenge. "So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that." I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous). "Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic." Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction. "No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant." People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com...). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials. |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00011-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution. |
12 | 6702c8de-2019-04-18T12:13:43Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Abortion should be legal Abortion should be illegal (except for cases when a mothers life is greatly threatened) for these reasons which I will discuss in greater deal later; there are many ways births can be prevented , second the unborn babies are protected under the law, and it is against the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. There are many ways that are not an abortion that can be used before to prevent a birth. The Planned Parenthood website lists 20 different forms of birth control, many of which come at no charge. These different forms of birth control when used in tandem can reduce the risk of a birth to practically zero. These forms of birth control include but are not limited too: Abstinence Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon) Birth Control Patch Birth Control Pills Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera) Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge) Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing) cervical Cap (FemCap) Condom Diaphragm Female Condom Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs) IUD Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Spermicide Withdrawal (Pull Out Method) This slue of methods are all viable methods of preventing a birth. Unborn babies are in fact currently protected by the law. There is a current federal law called "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of it recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". This means legally a crime can be committed against a baby, such as murder. Currently as it stands the law sees unborn children as human and all humans have the right to life. No one has a right to rob someone of the right to life, not a mother, not a father, no one. Finally doctors who perform an abortion are in violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." is a line from the modern Hippocratic Oath. Killing a baby when there are other alternatives is in direct violation of the statement against over treatment. As long as any other option exists a doctor should not carry out an abortion, because the thing a doctor must hold most sacred, a human life, is at stake. |
26 | 440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00007-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Education: Testing Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. "Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, "Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well. |
47 | dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework is Necessary Lastly, Homework is a necessary component to keep in schools today because of the direct connection it has with the "real working world" that not many school subjects actually entertain. Think about it; everyone with a job gets homework, No matter how old you are. We all know the age-old saying of practice makes perfect and, In this case, It still holds. Meaning, We need to help develop these skills in our students from as young as possible. With the alternative argument holding true, If our students weren"t taught to handle the pressures of homework in their younger years, They may find developing years significantly harder without this skill already developed significantly, They would have to develop it themselves and without the assistance of parents or teachers (who are there to teach you). Homework also aids child creativity, Allowing them to discover and search for things on their own and produce work in their own way, Promoting resourcefulness, They develop their own methods, And it allows kids to explore themselves and what works for them, And will aid their data collection in years to come. |
44 | 1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino "Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. " Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things. |
50 | a76b7e0f-2019-04-18T19:48:00Z-00007-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal healthcare I would lke to challenge Handsoff to a debate on universal healthcare. The match will be scheduled for four rounds so that I can blow off my first round with pleasantries. My only debate with you, handsoff, was not very competitive and I would like the chance for a good exchange with you. I saw you were against universal healthcare, so I just threw it up there. I haven't, as of yet, read any of your debates but I see your record is exemplary and I would like to take a crack at you! Our last debate was productive despite its complicated nature, and I reference it often in my other debates. If you have a stronger opinion, about a different subject in which we disagree, then feel free to challenge me instead of taking this debate. |
34 | ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00005-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. "Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum." Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore. |
10 | 668db558-2019-04-18T12:38:45Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | The benefits of vaccines outweigh any harm Edward Jenner was under demonic influence. Even his associates wondered about his "mental soundnes",---Washinton Chronicles. I was unsuccessful in clicking muslim. Good day to you as well. |
35 | 3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00006-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games cause violence The resolution: "Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. "Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution"Video games" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include "all" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that "Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as "big enough to worry about". For that reason, I dismiss the "big enough to worry about" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be "violent" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. "Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully "in favour of video games", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...) |
9 | 240350cd-2019-04-18T15:36:50Z-00004-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School Uniforms Today, I will be arguing AGAINST the implementation of school uniforms. That means my opponent must SUPPORT school uniforms, in one way or another. In Round One, I expect my opponent to say "I accept the debate," and wait for me to make the opening argument in Round Two. That is all! |
29 | 9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00006-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Allow illegal immigrants amnesty. I realize that this is a very important topic that many people are interested in. First, what is illegal immigration? Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders, or the residence of foreign nationals in a country, in a way that is illegal according to the immigration laws of the destination country. There are two types of immigration in the United States as of March 2014. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... The first type is family immigration. The second type is permanent/temporary immigration. There is actually a section about illegal immigrants coming from different countries. We currently let in around 70,000 immigrants each year from different countries. This is mainly because of persecution in their birth country. Now, imagine that you are a child in ____(insert country here). Bloody battles ensue, you are getting persecuted, and your parents don't have any money. Life is terrible in this country, and you think that going to the United States would be the best option. You flee there, and just as you get there you aren't allowed. Are you supposed to go back to your country now and face more persecution? I honestly see nothing wrong with immigration. They aren't doing it illegally because there are specific instructions congress has set up for refugees fleeing their homes. They can have just as much success and will hopefully get a job and grow up happily. I'm interested in how my opponent will respond. |
9 | 653654bc-2019-04-18T16:18:21Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Kids should wear uniforms in elementary schools. The topic we are debating today is "Kids should wear uniforms in elementary schools." I, Jacobie1121, will be taking the pro side of the debate. Definition: Uniforms are clothes that every student should be wearing when at school. Elementary school includes grades 1-6. ROUND ONE: Acceptance. ROUND TWO: Each debater will bring up a max of FIVE points. ROUND THREE: Only rebuttals and summaries, no added points. YOU MAY NOT STATE A REBUTTAL IN ANY OTHER ROUND BESIDES THE THIRD ONE! Thank you, Jacobie1121 |
15 | 784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka |
44 | e85f616c-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Scream at the Sky day is useless Thanks for accepting the challenge. First of all, scream at the sky day is a sort of holiday made to protest 'the current state of our democracy', and/or the election of Donald Trump. America's voting system however, has been operating like this for hundreds of years. Both Hillary and Trump played by the rules and Donald won. Scream at the sky is protesting the American voting system, which allows for all states to get a say. Donald won over America, while Clinton won over a few large states. This holiday is unless. |
17 | 554979f3-2019-04-18T11:41:38Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Recreational Marijuana should be legal This is my first time soooo, whatever, lets begin. There is a lot of evidence that some of the compounds in the cannabis plant, which is where marijuana comes from, can help people with certain illnesses. But for healthy people, using marijuana causes a number of bad side effects and negative health consequences. Short term marijuana effects include: Sleepiness and depression, an increased heart rate (which can cause a heart attack, anxiety and panic), and delayed reaction times. Long term marijuana effects include: Over the long-term the drug suppresses the immune system, causes growth disorders, lack of motivation and lung damage, changes mood and personality and lowers libido. |
38 | d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00007-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine Definitions: Medical marijuana: marijuana used for medical purposes Effective: successful in producing a desired result I don't think clarification is needed. First round acceptance, (and for pro): definitions, and rules. I await a fun, and appropriate, debate. |
47 | bc9ca527-2019-04-18T14:21:38Z-00004-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Is homework good Ok just so you know this is just a debate I'm doing for fun and if I don't argue back I got bored Ok anyways I think homework should be abolished just ponder this 6 hours a day 5 days a week 10 months a year every year till they get a job is that not enough there's a difference between giving work because it's not done but just popping up and saying here do this worksheet even though you already talked about this for 6 hours(just and example high school is worse) if they have all thier work done let them be free not having to sit down doing more work they already had 6 hours of work seriously |
16 | 80cee399-2019-04-18T14:17:49Z-00000-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous Thanks the debate dairygirl4u2c!" i dont have much evidence other than my common sense ideas, but then again enither do you offer evidence that no one would die. "First of all, I'd like to remind voters that Pro has the burden to show laissez faire is dangerous. I don't have to prove that NOBODY would die unexpectedly under laissez faire. Life is dangerous and millions died directly from the hand of governments in the 20th century. I did provide evidence in the last round that the only mortality increase during the great depression was from a slight increase in suicides. This was prior to LBJ's great society, and a time with little government involvement in health care. Keep in mind the graph from the last round that showed how low welfare spending was at that time. Also remember the generous amount of charitable giving I showed in the last round, which I'm sure would be much higher if not for the crowding out affect of government welfare. With the levels of wealth we have today, which would be even higher under laissez faire, it is hard to imagine anyone dying of malnourishment. And only in a Utopian world of endless resources can we afford to give everyone all the health care they ask for.Pro tries to show again that lack of health insurance affects mortality, but I've already shown there is no such link. Pro's first link is interesting, showing that some people don't fill their prescriptions. News flash! Even though I can generally afford them, I almost never fill my prescriptions and I won't unless the doctor tells me I'm in danger unless I do. All that article says is that people will buy more of something that costs less. No kidding - it's an a priori economic truism. If I could spend 10 million dollars lifetime on every person in the U.S. I bet I could raise mortality rates (although likely only marginally). "you have a heart attack and cant afford a bypass or a stent, you get aspirin"Government health insurance does not make health care a non-scarce resource. We can't dedicate 75% of our economy to health care and even if we did, we still may not be able to provide every single person every bit of treatment they would ever want. Simply stating "you can't afford X you die" implies a world were scarcity does not exist and that world only existed in Karl Marx's dreams of communism. "only because of laws do many doctors operate when the patient has no money"Doctors have been put in a position where they aren't allowed to make decisions about much of anything. They have essentially become employees of insurance companies, and this has occurred because of regulations and costs spiraling out of control because there is no free market to control prices. Doctors don't even discuss price with patients (if they even know the prices) Besides, this statement is just wrong. I'll remind Pro of the 358$ billion a year donated by Americans to charity. Americans also do substantial voluntary work. Pro must think that none of this includes those who work in health care, but Pro would be wrong:"With the conviction that healthcare is the right of all and must be provided regardless of socioeconomic or health status, three New York University (NYU) medical students established the NYU Free Clinic Project in the fall of 1999."http://nycfreeclinic.med.nyu.edu...Here is the form 990 for Beth Israel Medical Center that includes work from over 1000 volunteers and over 10$ million in contributions and grants. And this is despite the current environment where we all know about all the government welfare available.http://www.cirseiu.org...This debate has referenced in passing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, which obligates emergency care regardless of insurance. Pro assumes both that doctors would not care for indigent patients and that no such law would exists under laissez faire. I don't think either of these assumptions can be made without justification. Certainly I have showed cases where the first assumption is false."he also says if you are stupid enough to buy from a mom and pop you get what you deserve"No, what I said was you assume that people are stupid enough to do this. You also assume, given that such stupidity exists, you can solve the problem with government. Given the FDA Vioxx scenario (and many othes) or the huge problems with consumers abusing pharmaceuticals, clearly this is not true."if they were too fast, unsafe drugs and food would be allowed. "I'm not sure how you can believe this. I can only assume you didn't read my arguments are chose to ignore what FDA insiders say about the culture there."also the problem, is even bigger companies will sell what they can make money on, even if people get sick or die"Pro clearly doesn't understand the ideas behind laissez faire and the meaning of private property, properly backed by law. Pharmacy companies have not only their reputations at stake but also the threat of law suits. I remind voters of my Sam Peltzman arguments from the last round that showed the Kefauver-Harris act of 1962 had no positive affect on the introduction of unsafe drugs. I have shown not only specific cases where the FDA has failed (and thousands of died), along with systemic cultural problems within, but also how it's monopoly privilege protects it from being held accountable. The best solution to these problems is to break the monopoly and allow free competition. Pro says that my tragedy of the commons example is unrelated. So either Pro thinks the deepwater horizon oil spill isn't related to the environment or thinks this was not an example of the tragedy of the commons. I'll leave it to voters, but my position is clear.Pro says I dropped an argument from round 1: Decreases in pollution have been brought about increases in wealth and improvements in technology. Ok, in round 2 Pro says:"the problem is they had no reason to use their wealth or technology unless the government told them to. "Although I did not specifically state how my arguments link to this, I did provide a reason why businesses would do this: private property. Under laissez faire, a business cannot pollute onto another's property without legal repercussions. Remember, there is no public property except for a limited resources owned by government. Pro says:" he ignores that i stated that peopel are allowed to die with the current pollution allowed"Well, that's interesting. Pro admits that the EPA is allowing people to die by their own current standards. Keep in mind that the EPA, like the FDA, is a government entity with monopoly privilege. I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine the wrath that would come down on a private entity with such an allowable death rate compared to the sort of reaction we get with government entities: "Oh, well. That's government. Can't live without out! Take the good with the bad!". Pro says there is no need to state or prove anything. "See, the EPA has allowable death rates so laissez faire would be worse!". I don't get it. The EPA is a monopoly beholden to nobody. When the screw up, there is no recourse. But somehow I'm to believe that with no government involvement, and all property owned privately, that people would not come up with away to protect their property. I don't think so. |
35 | 758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00004-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. |
34 | 5fb43899-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00010-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives. States may not be perfect but they are better than a stateless society. Whilst states do not have a perfect track record a stateless society would have all sorts of negative consequences. The laws in modern countries are designed to protect the weak from theft and harm. Property laws protect people's property that, in the case of houses they may have worked for 20 years or more to acquire. A stateless society is one that cannot enforce these laws and must always be more unjust than a society with a state. improve this |
12 | 8e815158-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized I, too, would like to request that potential voters choose the winner based on the strength, and persuasiveness of their argument, rather than their personal position on the subject matter. I realize that far more people are for legalization than against it. With regard to the argument that Marinol is an inferior drug by comparison, I think it is worth pointing out that the Food and Drug Administration determined Marinol to be safe, effective, and therapeutically beneficial for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. This is not to say it is more effective, but that it is most importantly safe, as well as suiting its purpose. According to the FDA: "These products [Marinol and Cesamet] have been through FDA's rigorous approval process and have been determined to be safe and effective for their respective indications. It is only through the FDA drug approval process that solid clinical data can be obtained and a scientifically based assessment of the risks and benefits of an investigational drug is made. Upon FDA approval for marketing, consumers who need the medication can have confidence that the approved medication will be safe and effective." Marinol contains active ingredients that are present in botanical marijuana. Marinol also contains the active ingredient dronabinol, a synthetic delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is considered the psychoactive component of marijuana. However, the FDA have determined Marinol, through their "rigorous approval process," to be safer in the respect that Marinol does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana. Marijuana also has been recommended by advocates of legalization for the treatment of conditions such as glaucoma as well. However, according to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of disease by reducing high intraocular pressure. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana. They concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for treatment of any disease condition. The Institute of Medicine further concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. Smoked marijuana can also affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections. This demonstrates the simple fact that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems. A Columbia University study found that a control group that smoked a single marijuana cigarette every other day had a white blood cell count that was 39 percent lower than the norm. This impedes the immune systems capability of fighting infection, thus making the user far more susceptible to infection and illness, which certainly isn't a good idea for critically ill patients trying to fight debilitating diseases. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes a day. Additionally, Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana. This is particularly dangerous to people with high blood pressure, as marijuana raises blood pressure. From 1993 through 2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled. Another important thing to consider is the rise in potency of marijuana over the past few decades. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the THC content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from 3.71% in 1985 to an average of 5.57% in 1998. The average THC content of U.S.-produced sinsemilla also increased, from 3.2% in 1977 to 12.8% in 1997. When compared to the average cigarette, smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. Marijuana also contains more than 400 chemicals that include most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance. Marijuana IS a gateway drug. One might have their own opinion on the matter, but statistics don't lie. Marijuana, according to studies, plays a role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine. According to these longterm studies, very few people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana. Certainly, not all marijuana users go on to experiment with other illegal drugs, but using marijuana sometimes lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes users to a culture that encourages drug use. This is one of the major detriments of the advocacy of legalization to begin with. In the 1980s, illicit drug use was reduced by 50 percent. This was due in part to the combined and concerted efforts of law enforcement and prevention and treatment professionals. However, now that a more tolerant view of marijuana is prevalent in our society, drug use has gone up again. Substance abuse always seems to rise whenever public attitude is more tolerant towards drugs. This is particularly detrimental to the susceptible youth of America and should be considered an area of eminent concern. Marijuana IS an addictive drug, contrary to the popularly promoted notions of pro-legalization advocates. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependency. The youth of America in particularly are suffering the greatest from marijuana abuse. More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or alcohol. The percentage of adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana addiction grew from 43% in 1994 to 60% in 1999. Why should we not allow legalization for recreational use? Public safety. As I am sure you are aware, marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving, alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. Other inhibitory effects that influence such activity include memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety. These associated affects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Use of marijuana can also make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs in the road. In one study, out of the total amount of drivers stopped for reckless driving, one-third of them were found to be under the influence of marijuana. In a 1990 report, the National Transportation Safety Board studied 182 fatal truck accidents, and found that just as many of the incidents were caused by drivers using marijuana as were caused by alcohol -- 12.5 percent in each case. Another concern of public safety is the evocation of violent and criminal thinking while under the influence of marijuana. According to statistical review, there seems to be a connection; marijuana contributes to crime. A large percentage of those arrested for crimes test positive for marijuana. Nationwide, 40 percent of adult males tested positive for marijuana at the time of their arrest. In short, not only is the health of marijuana users of concern, either for medicinal or recreational purposes, but public safety is of concern as well. P.S. -- I apologize, I was unable to squeeze in my assessment of your arguments and to answer your questions, I will attempt to squeeze them into my round 3 argument. |
23 | dcca0397-2019-04-18T15:05:54Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified FINAL REBUTTALSR1. Sanctity of LifePro accuses me of making assumptions, yet makes his own, which is that "if Kant said it, he must be right". Pro doesn't use any logic to provide a base for his assertion that euthanasia patients are irrational beings, but just quotes someone else's interpretation of Kant and implies that this must be true. The only notable contention worthy of discussion is the statement that I have conceded to patients being irrational, when I really haven't. Pro quotes me out of context: "euthanasia patients cannot assess themselves properly", but doesn't realize that I also said, "One cannot assess themselves properly", meaning that I meant no has the right to make the decision that their life is not worth living, not that those in pain are irrational.The definition of "rational" is: "agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible"[1].The question at hand is not what constitutes rationality, but what constitutes worth. According to this definition, a person who is asleep or in a coma is not rational, because he or she is not sensible. Sensibility does not apply when one is not aware. In order to be reasonable, one must have the ability to reason, which does not exist when sleeping, unconscious, or unaware. If someone is in this state, it does not mean that he or she has no worth. What makes them unique is still existent regardless of their state of mind. They are alive and are a member of the human species, so their value is the same as anyone else's. Thus, we see that the notion that worth is dictated by rationality is illogical. My opponent's argument for such an arbitrary claim has not been made, besides quoting a professor he asserts is right.R2. Devaluation of LifePro cites the Bible (which is iffy, but I'll indulge) as the base for his argument that it is better to be dead than alive when it comes to suffering. The writer of Ecclesiastes actually seems to be expressing his feelings of envy towards those who have not experienced sin (those "which have not been"), not advice. Since the Bible was written by God's alleged followers, not himself, there isn't much of a reason to believe that the Bible is 100% directly from him.Pro's argument here is pretty weak: he is stating that the value of life is factored whether someone can make decisions or not. This is not true at all. If I am allowed choice A but not choice B, is my life worth less than those who can choose both A and B? Of course not. This is a ridiculous assertion.Allowing a patient to die shows that life must not have as much inherent worth for those who are disabled. Furthermore, others tend to look down upon such patients which creates a downgrading image of the disabled, as if life means less to them. This misconception is unnecessary and invalid, and hurts the public view towards life.R3. Best interestsHuman beings are an end to themselves, regardless of whether one can properly reason. If one is an end to themselves, that means that they are their own good, and it would be immoral to choose to destroy that end. If someone is their own good, they ought to uphold that good, which is their own inherent worth. As I demonstrated above, the ability to reason has nothing to do with one's worth. My original reasoning can be illustrated:P1: All human beings are an end to themselves.P2: This end means that humans have an inherent goodness.P3: Self-worth is a result of inherent goodness.P4: Extinguishing self-worth by process of elimination is morally wrong.C1: Euthanasia is morally unjust.Self-reasoned motives cannot be seen as equally respectable (in this case) partially because, according to Pro, euthanasia patients are irrational. If one is irrational, then their ability to reason is very limited, so they should not be trusted with making a decision concerning self-elimination, especially since such an issue is one of the most serious that can possibly be made.The other reason for why self-motives are not equally respectable in euthanasia cases are because there is no absolute knowledge existing concerning the future of the patient. It is wrong to make decisions based on human predictions. As I put forth in the second round, there are multiple reasons why euthanasia is obviously unjust.But Pro counters with this: "Euthanasia may be necessary because it may be the only way to end a patient's suffering". The problem with this assertion is the word may. It is unethical to make such decisions based on the rationale, "it may be the only reason, but there's no way to know for sure so we might as well eliminate the patient". What kind of reasoning is this? As moral human beings, the benefit if the doubt should go towards preserving life. If I were hunting and heard a rustling in a nearby bush, would I pull out my gun and blindly shoot? No, because there is no certainty about who are what is inside that bush, so the hunter should be absolutely sure before shooting. Since there is no way to do this in euthanasia cases, eugenics as a whole is unjust.R4. Euthanasia and SuicidePro misreads my argument of the similarities between suicide baiting and euthanasia encouragement by stating that allowing euthanasia isn't suicide baiting. It isn't, but encouraging such is. There really is no big difference between family members of a euthanasia patient pressuring them to be euthanized and a friend telling someone else to go through with suicide. The latter is a legal violation deserving of prosecution, but the former is not. Clearly, this a similarity that shows how unethical euthanasia is.The role of a physician is to preserve life, not eliminate it. Life cannot be made better because that patient does not even contain life anymore, and that patient cannot experience anything else anymore. Suffering is only one component of what they cannot perceive.Legal ability does not constitute justice. Euthanasia cannot be adequately defined as murder in areas where it is legal (because its definition states that murder is only legitimate if it is unlawful), but it can still be seen as an unjust killing. Whether society agrees over its morality is irrelevant to its actual morality. The application of the ad populum fallacy isn't sufficient for justifying such an act. Pro seems to dodge my argument that the difference between euthanasia and suicide is the presence of a physician and creates a straw man by implying that I stated that physicians are murders, which I did not. The definition of murder disallows physicians as being constituted as such.However, a physician act isn't justified just because it isn't murder. The physician may have simply been "doing his duty" or made a misplaced ethical decision.ConclusionI have successfully rebutted all of Pro's points and shown why they are illogical. Pro relies on quotes from other sources supporting his view but doesn't actually show why these views are logically correct or ethically sound. In sum, life is meant to be preserved (whether rational or irrational), it is wrong to devaluate life, eugenics is not in the patient's best interest, and it is too similar to suicide to be considered ethically good.Thus, I negate the resolution of voluntary euthanasia being morally justified. Thanks for the debate Pro and thanks to readers for reading! Vote Con.Source[1] http://www.dictionary.reference.com... |
11 | 1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970"s and 1980"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE ! |
18 | 9a840a37-2019-04-18T18:13:26Z-00005-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | debate on church cooperation Sorry, for my late response Does the Bible authorize one congregation to send money to another church for evangelism? Discussions about the sponsoring church led to this debate, so my thoughts and applications center there. Does the Bible authorize the sponsoring church arrangement? Annanicole says "yes" and it is my task to examine her arguments. First, my opponent writes about "one-cupperism". Yet I have never made an argument about that. I never defended "one cupperism" and this debate is not about it. She furthers states that "there is no specific pattern" concerning that matter. She is sadly wrong. These passages teach a pattern for scriptural congregational pattern for evangelism: (Acts 11:22-23; cf. 13:1-3; 4:21-23, 26-28; 15:22-31,40; 18:22; Colossians 4:16). A local church may send scriptural teaching to any person or group of people anywhere (1 Thessalonians 1:8). When a local church sends a teaching paper to other churches or pays a preacher to hold a gospel meeting for a small congregation, this is scriptural congregational cooperation. Each church may support an evangelist to work with it (2 Corinthians 12:13). A congregation may act alone in supporting a preacher in another place (Philippians 1:3-5; 2:25,30; 4:14-18. Or, several churches may independently and directly support a preacher working in another place (2 Corinthians 11:8-9). Furthermore, my opponent argues that I had a false parallel between a saved and unsaved person. Well, I don't see any problem with it. And i can stay consistent with it; read my first affirmative. yet my opponent contradicts herself by setting a parallel between the Bible and the Spiritual Sword. First, the Spiritual Sword is not as infallible as the Bible. Second, my opponent's logic would lead us to believe in the "end justifies the means" ideology" and to think that we can send Jehovah's Witnesses literature to congregations. I have also shown in my first affirmative that it is not wrong to send Bibles. What I'm opposed is one a congregation sending money to a giant church (the sponsoring church) that will oversee the evangelistic work of many churches. Furthermore, Annanicole twists my arguments by saying that as if I was arguing that it is a sin for pagans to read church bulletins especially if it has the plan of salvation. Well, to twist my arguments that is necessary but I don't affirm such thing nor teach it. Of course I affirm that if churches finished reading those bulletins it can also be passed to non-Christians. The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated. Now, my opponent just wants to turn the heads of the readers to what she calls truth (? ). "collectivity of churches" sends money/food to one needy congregation. .. You'd have a "Benevolence Society" You are surely mistaken. The reason for this is not true in benevolence since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work. The Scriptures teach that churches can cooperate as long as we must follow its pattern (each contributing congregation must send directly to the church in need) and not violate it (create a collectivity of churches or a church supported benevolent society). "The Spiritual Sword. . [Is] an expedient" Sure it is. As long as it follows the New Testament pattern. See my argument above. Above, congregation #2 is a fully authorized, scriptural entity. The "Missionary Society" is a totally unauthorized, unscriptural entity. Therein lies the difference. If you think Congregation #2 and the Missionary Society are parallel, then you imply that Congregation #2, like the Missionary Society, has no scriptural right to exist. Absolutely. But the local, Scriptural, church can. Again my opponent is applying the "end justifies the means" ideology by saying that an unscriptural missionary can exist but an unscriptural "sponsoring church" can. "there is really no such thing as a "sponsoring church"" Oh really? Doesn't the getwell church sponsor the Spiritual Sword? You only need common sense to see that. Are you familiar with the "Banner of truth" they openly admit that in their November/December 2008 that the powell grove congregation will sponsor the said publication. Concerning the Antioch church, the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church. QUESTIONS TO MY OPPONENT (1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? (2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? (3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? Conclusion You can easily observe that Annanicole didn't use any scripture whip out the ones she used later in her first negative because those were my scriptural proof. Yet, she affirms that :"It is consistent with - in harmony with - the New Testament for churches to contribute funds from their treasuries to support the accomplishment of the Great Commission by contributing to the Spiritual Sword, Gospel Advocate, television programs, radio programs, area-wide meetings, and the like. "So, where are the passages you're talking about annanicole? if I have any unanswered arguments, just infom me. |
28 | 8f7cc685-2019-04-18T15:45:42Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal. Porn makes women to be objectified for the pleasure of men pirating the vidss off of the internet or on sites that host free pornography. It's a very epxloited system where the money is not flowign well enough due to cyber corruption wher elittle teen boys can easily view the most hardcore porn ever.Prostitution is the beautiful art of using one's body to its fullest extent. It takes less training than pornography, isn't elitist to who is working wiht the richest director and is just a whore and client charing the highest form of pleasure known to mankind.Stop letting little kids watch 2 old men bang, just let the rich men compensate for their lack of time and attention to a wife with desperate white trash... Or trash of any other race. |
11 | 4af8c703-2019-04-18T18:48:22Z-00004-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Public Masturbation should be accepted Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of their body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. Fap the sound one makes when masturbating himself to ecstasyRape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consentBeing that my opponent hasn't defined where the "masturbation" or "fapping" would take place, I will assume he/she means anywhere in the world. In order to focus this debate, I will debate the issue as if it were to take place in the United Kingdom. In my second round I will talk about the the severity of Public Masturbating and the effects it would have in society. I will also debate in my second round that being legalising masturbating in public would NOT eliminate rape. |
40 | c5bd6ddf-2019-04-18T18:02:46Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | "Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment" The costs of the death penalty and the absence of positive benefits make execution an unjustifiable form of criminal punishment. I am advocating for life-without-parole as an alternative to the death penalty. 1. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty will prevent murders from murdering again In previous round I argued that the death penalty does not deter future murders and provided an assortment of studies that supported my claim. My opponent does not dispute my claim, but instead responds that the death penalty exists to prevent convicted murders from having the opportunity to murder again. My opponent argues that 1 in 200 people break out of prison and thus murderers could theoretically escape and commit more murders. He also states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison after serving their term go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. I respond to both of these issues. First, my opponent states that one-half of one percent of prisoners escape, i.e. 1 in 200 hundred. This number is apparently correct, but it is misleading for our purposes. The vast majority of these escapees are minimum security prisoners that are defined as "walk-aways" from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision.[1] These prisoners are not murderers escaping from maximum security facilities. Instead, they are typically non-violent offenders. If we look at the facilities where murderers are most likely to be housed – federal prison, maximum security prison, and super maximum security prison – it is clear that escapes are extremely rare. Only one federal prisoner, out of 115,000, escaped in the four years prior to the source my opponent cited, and that prisoner was recaptured.[1] And, no prisoner has ever escaped from a super maximum security prison.[2] Escapes from maximum security prisoners have occurred, but these escapes are also highly rare, and it is even more rare for these prisoners to commit murders after escaping. Therefore, the risk that a murderer will escape from prison and then go on to commit more murders is unlikely. Second, my opponent states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. This may be true, but it is not relevant to our issue. I am arguing that lifetime imprisonment without parole should be an alternative to the death penalty. Lifetime prisoners without parole will not be released from prison, and therefore my opponent's statistic is not relevant with regard to these prisoners. If a prisoner is not released from prison, he can't possibly go on to commit serious crimes out in society. 2. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty by guillotine will be cheaper than life without parole I previously stated that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. For example, it has cost California approximately $4,000,000,000 since 1978. And, it costs an additional $100,000 per inmate, per year to house a death row inmate, as opposed to housing a standard life-without-parole prisoner. [3][4]. My opponent argues that execution by guillotine will help reduce the costs of the death penalty, however this is not true. The majority of the costs associated with the death penalty do not come from the manner of execution, but instead these costs come from two places: (1) specialized housing for death row inmates; and (2) immense judicial and procedural costs associated with death row inmates. First, death row inmates are housed in special facilities that are separate from the general population. These special facilities incur greater costs because prisoners must be housed in separate individual cells, prisoners must be supervised and guarded by additional staff, and these facilities must be maintained by additional staff. These specialized housing costs for death row inmates will continue to exist even if the manner of execution is changed – i.e. by guillotine. Second, death row inmates cost taxpayers an immense amount of money because of the procedural and judiciary costs associated with the process of death row and execution. These greater costs do not exist in the judicial process for life-without-parole cases. As stated in my previous round, death row cases have extraordinarily high taxpayer costs associated with pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, and federal habeas corpus petitions. These various procedural steps are in place to help prevent innocent people from being executed, but instead they end up costing billions of dollars to taxpayers. Changing the manner of execution will have no effect on these costs. Thus, the manner of execution is not a significant cause of the immense costs associated with the death penalty and changing the method of execution will have little to no effect on reducing those costs. 3. Rebuttal to :: Accidental conviction is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread In my prior arguments, I argued that the risk of erroneous conviction and execution were too great to allow for the death penalty. I noted that as many as 20,000 U.S. prisoners are suspected to be innocent, a significant amount of which could be on death row. [5] My opponent argues that erroneous conviction is a problem that is widespread within the criminal justice system and is not specific to execution. I agree that the problem is widespread, but it is only in capital punishment cases that an erroneous conviction could lead to an innocent person losing their life. When weighing the costs of potential erroneous conviction, we must also weigh the punishment that would be imposed. Clearly the costs of erroneous conviction are lower if the punishment is only 10 years in prisoner, or 20 years, or even life imprisonment, when compared to execution. We may be able to morally justify some risk of error when the penalties are lesser because these people will still have their lives, but we cannot justify it when the penalty is death. Thus, the cost of error is much larger in death penalty cases than in any other type of cases, and this error cannot be justified in the absence of any positive benefit by the death penalty. 4. Rebuttal to :: Unfair punishment of poor people is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread This issue relates to the previous one. My opponent is correct that this problem affects poor people in every type of case. But, again I reiterate my point that the cost of losing is much greater in capital punishment cases, where the wealthy will live and the poor may not. Without a positive benefit to the death penalty, there is simply no way to justify this recognized and unfair punishment and execution of poor people. CONCLUSION There is simply no positive benefit to the death penalty. It takes the life an individual and provides no demonstrable benefit to society. The costs associated with the death penalty, both economic and moral, are too great to justify its use. Just like the death penalty, life without parole will keep murderers from reentering into society and inflicting harm onto innocent people. Maximum security prisoners rarely escape, and when they do, they rarely commit murders. The death penalty burdens taxpayers with extraordinary economic costs that could be eliminated if convicts were instead sentences to life-without-parole. The death penalty also burdens society with immense moral costs due to its high risk that innocent people may be erroneously convicted and executed. This moral cost and risk extends even further to poor individuals, who lack the financial resources to defend themselves against this absolute and final sentence. Without any clear positive benefits and with so many negative costs associated with the death penalty, society cannot justify using execution as a form of criminal punishment. SOURCES Sources 1 through 5 in comments. |
2 | ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00001-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | kids shouldent vape I've seen kids younger then 14 who are vaping, and when you ask them why they say "its not bad for me" so i think that we should slap parents who let there kids vape |
36 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | 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; |
8 | 2e0aacbd-2019-04-18T18:33:31Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | more guns less crime I'm bored so. .. Just bringing back Koopin's speaches. |
48 | d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote. |
16 | 6646d6c9-2019-04-18T16:58:30Z-00000-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Psychedelic drugs should be legalized for recreational use. I presented no arguments in previous rounds because the burden of proof rested on Pro in this debate, as she is arguing for a change in the status quo. I will not present any arguments in this round either. Instead, I shall provide some brief rebuttals and a summary of the debate.On psychological dependenceMy opponent cited cases of strange addictions from the humor site, Cracked.com. Pro went on to say that this was evidence that humans can become psychologically dependent upon almost anything, and that therefore making a substance illegal because it carries a risk of dependence is ludicrous.However, the APA Dictionary of Psychology defines psychological dependence as "dependence on a psychoactive substance for the reinforcement it provides."(1) The term "psychological dependence" can, therefore, only be used when speaking of the effects of psychoactive drugs such as LSD.On comparing hallucinogens to methamphetaminesI would like to restate my previous assertion, that proving that one dangerous illegal drug is less dangerous than another does not mean that it should be legalized. If anything, it is simply an argument for why the more dangerous one should stay illegal.My opponent provided no evidence to back up her claim that the legality of a drug does not deter people from its use.On the immediate and long-term dangers of hallucinogensWhile it is obviously true, as my opponent said, that not every user of psychoactive drugs will suffer from side effects, this does not mean that there is no risk. Unfortunately, whether or not one will suffer from said effects is highly unpredictable, difficult to determine even for those with medical training.(2) Because of this, using hallucinogens is like playing a game of Russian roulette.I did not try to refute my opponent's statement that Abilify can cause neurological damage because I do not doubt that it is true. However, simply because a prescription drug with known health benefits has certain side effects is no reason to legalize a drug for recreational use. If anything, it is simply an argument for setting higher standards for the pharmaceutical industry. My opponent is also incorrect in her belief that hallucinogens carry no long-term health risks. Hallucinogens cause such long-term side effects as: Memory loss Difficulty in speaking Impaired thinking ability Depression Unwanted weight loss Mood swings Anxiety Flashbacks Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD) -- trailing images, spots, auras, and other visual disturbances; depression, or panic attacks; long after use or perhaps permanent Increased risk of developing schizophrenia or psychotic episodes(3) Pro tried to argue that prescription drugs can cause death, however she failed to provide an example of a prescription drug that can be immediately fatal. And once again, a deadly prescription drug would not be evidence for the need to legalize psychoactive drugs, but for the need to impose stricter regulations on the pharmaceutics industry. As for whether or not hallucinogens cause mental illness, we know of at least one meal disorder that is caused directly by the use of psychoactive drugs: HPPD.(4) Summary To sum up this debate, my opponent began by arguing that hallucinogens are "physically harmless and not addictive." However, when presented with evidence to the contrary, Pro admitted that psychoactive drugs can be lethal and that users can develop a psychological dependence upon them. She then changed her argument, saying that psychoactive drugs should be legalized because although they are dangerous, they are no more dangerous than certain prescription drugs (a statement she failed to properly support with evidence). I would like to close by thanking Pro for being a challenging debate partner. Best of luck. Sources 1. VandenBos, Gary R. APA Dictionary of Psychology. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2007. 2. http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au... 3. http://www.intheknowzone.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
8 | b185370b-2019-04-18T18:07:10Z-00006-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion ive never done this before so idrk what im doing but...im pro abortion, hardcore for abortion....lets go |
10 | fd606b23-2019-04-18T11:34:33Z-00007-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory I'd like to start by thanking my opponent, Smooosh, for challenging me to this debate. Looking forward to a solid debate. This round is just for acceptance from him. Smooosh, if you have any concerns about the way this debate is structured, send me a PM and we can iron them out. I'll start with some housekeeping. Some basic definitions: Vaccine: a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease The MMR vaccine: the acronym stands for measles, mumps and rubella, three single-stranded RNA viruses, and the vaccine is meant to impart a protective immunologic response to those who take it. The vaccine is composed of live attenuated viruses, meaning that their virulence has been strongly reduced, but the virus is still viable. This ensures that the vaccine will have the strongest and longest-lasting effect, meaning that the vaccine only has to be taken in its two-shot series once over a person's lifetime. Should be mandatory: it is net beneficial that these injections required for individuals under the law. I will stress two terms in that last definition: net beneficial. This is the criteria on which the burdens for each side in this debate are based. While I carry the burden of proof, that only means that I must show that my case is net beneficial over whatever alternative Con provides, whether that's the status quo or a counter plan. Con can either show that my case is not net beneficial, or outweigh my case with whatever alternative he presents. I'll define the specific limits of my case in my opening round. For now, I'd just like to leave it with this. Looking forward to it! |
50 | 4f6a9acc-2019-04-18T16:31:48Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Everyone Should Eat Healthy It does not. For people who never ate it before may think that, but you'll get use to it. I never ate tofu before. And I have a question for you, are you fat? |
10 | 8c557e70-2019-04-18T12:34:50Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Women should be required to register for drafting I will be arguing that no one should be required to register for the military draft. |
37 | 240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00009-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Banning cell phones in cars New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. |
45 | 3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Stop the Minting of the American Penny Yea sorry about the mishap. Thanks for being understanding though. That being said, this will be my last round for arguments, so I will respond to the Pro side's last post and provide more clarity on my position. Section 1: The Penny has an Economic Impact in Industry, and Industry Tries to Help. In my last round, I reported that if the penny suddenly stopped being produced, that there would be a significant impact in the zinc industry that could cause large contracts with the government to be essentially voided. One such contract is with Jarden Zinc Products[1][2], who currently have contracts worth millions with the government to produce such pennies, and such voiding of coins for production would significantly have an impact on this industry. These companies don't try and stifle the American government either, as such industry uses modern technology to reduce the cost of the manufacturing. Multi-ply plating technology is now used to reduce cost when compared to through alloy coins, and makes these coins possess a unique electro magnetic signature (EMS) which provides for greater coin security.[1] So yes I see the Pro's side in that robotics can help manufacture durables (or pennies for this debate) cheaper, and that's great, but against Pro's argument, you don't see people abolishing the car…. Or milk. It takes people to come up with such testing and technologies to try and achieve ideas to manufacture better, so yes this is not only jobs being lost, but innovation as well. Section 2: Financial Impact of the Penny's Absence If the penny were to cease production, there would be many undesired consequences from this action that would be counter-intuitive from the Pro side, but would quickly become devastating realities for the general public. Intrinsically, if the penny were to be removed from production, there could be no way to sustain prices realistically without rounding to the nearest 5 cent piece. Millions of transactions are managed every day in the United States, and with 28% of Americans either not owning a savings/checking account, or trusting on payday lending services[3]. With this data, the amount of cash/coin trades each day is purely not dismissible, not withstanding that cash is used in 46% of all transactions in the U.S[4]. Demographics with comparatively low incomes (predominantly the young, elderly, and minorities) use cash more commonly than people with higher incomes. Because only cash dealings will be subject to rounding, any move to eradicate the penny would be regressive and hurt these demographics of Americans who have no other choice and do not possess the means to make non-cash transactions. According to one report[5], the Treasury would essentially lose money without the penny. First, the Mint's construction and circulation costs include fixed elements that will continue to be incurred whether or not the Mint manufactures the penny. The report approximates this fixed component at $13 million (2011). In addition, there is $17.7 million in operating costs apportioned to the penny that would have to be engrossed by the remaining denominations of circulating coins without the penny. Moreover, under present Mint accounting, the nickel expenses eleven cents to produce (and the nickel isn't even being targeted in this debate). In a scenario where nickel manufacturing doubled without the penny, the study determines that with current fixed costs, abolishing the penny would prospectively result in increased net costs to the Mint of $10.9 million, compared to the current state of manufacturing. Section 3: Proposed Solutions As I previously stated, there are better ways to resolve this debate, and the best way is to make the penny worth 1 cent again. In 1982, the United States changed the composition of the penny to reduce manufacturing costs, and such similar solutions can be found again in contemporary times, ending an outdated 30-year solution. An option that could sustain such reduction is costs calls for a core of some sort of ceramic material, with similar heft as zinc[6]. Ceramics are metal-based and consequently much denser than plastic, though not as heavy as metal itself. Ceramics could be made from 2 inexpensive compounds: silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3, or possibly with a bit of denser oxide such as titanium oxide added for weight. The ceramic penny core likely could be anodized with a copper skin fairly cheapl, thus no longer requiring the use of zinc to manufacture our pennies. Section 4: Current Trends Over the past couple years, the prices of the metals needed to produce the modern penny have actually decreased. According to a report from the Department of Treasury[a], after attaining a peak cost of 2.41 cents in 2011 due to the substantial growth in global metal prices, the cost of manufacturing has dropped to 1.83 cents for 2013.[4] In the 2014 fiscal year, the cost to yield a penny fell additionally to 1.70 cents.Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) has introduced a bi-partisan bill to mandate the use of steel in the manufacturing of pennies, dimes, and nickels. . Research has shown this bill could save the U.S. government up to $2 billion in material costs over a 10 years. References: [1]: http://www.export.gov... [2]: http://legacy.utsandiego.com...; [3]:http://www.forbes.com... [4]: http://www.frbsf.org...; [5]: http://financialservices.house.gov... [6]: http://www.livescience.com... [7]: http://riponadvance.com...; |
12 | 6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health "benefits" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal..... |
41 | 70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | 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. |
30 | 6e3f713c-2019-04-18T16:02:54Z-00006-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime I accept. This is my first debate against someone of your notoriety. I hope I will be able to provide a challenge. Good luck Pro, and good luck to myself as well. I'll probably need it more than you do. |
10 | ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Vaccines, granted, do have side effects, but what doesn't? For example: annually, 350 people die from bath/shower related incidents, 200 are killed when they choke on food, and 100 are killed by lightning [1]. On average, data from 1988-2008, a 20 year span, annualy 335.1 people are compensated for injuries because of vaccines by the government [2]. Furthermore, they don't all neccessarily die because of vaccines - compensation is also given based on factors such as medical costs, lost of productivity, etc. Childhood vaccines are 90-99% effective in preventing diseases through immunity [3]. Most of the time, children with vaccinations have less complications then children without vaccinations. Vaccinations are successful in reducing human suffering and death. Past examples show that vaccines are efficient. Cuba have literally eradicated measles and polio due to compulsory immunization. Vaccinations have saved an estimated 250000 lives every year there [4]. "Vaccines are among the 20th Century's most successful and cost-effective public health tools for preventing disease and death. Not long ago, diseases such as polio, measles, pertussis, diphtheria, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (known as Hib) were commonplace. Today, cases of most vaccine-preventable diseases are at or near all-time lows, and childhood immunization rates have never been higher. In less than a decade, the use of Hib conjugate vaccines nearly eliminated Hib invasive disease among children. During the course of the century, we have eradicated smallpox worldwide and, as of 1991, have eliminated wild polio virus from the Western Hemisphere. School laws requiring immunizations are effective in ensuring that high numbers of children are immunized" [7]. Quite recently, vaccines have saved countless lives and advanced living conditions. Therefore, vaccines help individuals and prevent diseases C2: Community Mandatory vaccinations protects societies, because our community would be ravaged by dangerous diseases if we don't develop enough immunity. Herd immunity is a form of immunity where a certain percentage of the population is innoculated agaisnt a disease, hence stopping the spread of it and saving the community. In order to protect public health, up to 95% of our population needs to be vaccinated [5]. "The CDC has determined that "nonmedical exemptions to vaccinations are a factor in the development of. .. diseases outbreaks" -[6]Measles outbreaks in New York City, San Diego, and other communities around the US, involved children whose parents refused vaccination, and another CDC report released in 2008 found that rates of undervaccination are even greater than previous studies showed and have a horrible impact on herd immunity [6]. In Colorado, vaccination rates started to lower, and when they did, the whooping cough worsened and spread. At the end of 2004, there were 1,200 cases of disease - higher than any year since 1964 [4]. The return of whooping cough shows the importance of constantly maintaining herd immunity. Mandatory vaccination has also protected societies from polio and small pox. Childhood vaccinations stop around 10.5 million cases of infectious illness every single year and save 33,000 lives annually [3]. Since the introduction of routine childhood vaccination, Diphtheria has dropped from a peak of 206,939 cases in 1921 to only four cases in 1990 [11]. In conclusion, mandatory vaccination protects the community and improves public health. C3: Money With the prevention of 6.4 million childhood deaths, 2 studies report a $231 billion dollar gain over the next 10 years due to routine vaccinations. Childhood vaccinations also reach out to poor families and women, with some vaccines such as the HPV vaccine. HPV leads to cervical cancer, and poor families as a group usually don't see doctors as often and get scanned for cervical cancer, and were also unlikely to give up $50-75 for the vaccine [4]. However, vaccine mandates were able to protect these women at the most cost-efficient way. The CDC also estimated that every $1 spent on the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine saves the heatlh care system $21, and every $1 spent on oral polio vaccinations save $6; and for every $1 spent on the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine saves $30 [9]. C4: The State has the AuthorityIn the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. One historical case would be Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court stated that states have the right to enforce compulsory immunization, and that these were reasonable measures to protect public health and safety [10]. The restraints put in place are for the common good of the people. Furthermore, the police power of the state must protect the public. In the 1922 case of Zucht vs. King, the Supreme Court once again adressed the constitutionality of childhood vaccination mandates, stating that "these ordinances confer not arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health" [10]. The Arizona Court of Appeals denied the argument that the right to education would defeat the state's need to protect against the spread of infectious diseases [10]. Individual rights do not include liberty to expose the community or the child to transferable diseases and sabatoge the well-being of others. Individuals themselves have the moral obligation to vaccinate their children. Generally, individuals are free to make decisions that impact their own lives, but in the case of vaccinations, your actions affect other individuals, removing this freedom [12]. The failure to vaccinate your children results in unintentionally passing on contagious diseases. On the grounds of potentional harm to outside parties, parents must vaccinate their offspring. Conclusion:The government has the right to enforce mandatory childhood vaccinations, along with a compelling state reasons. Vaccines, also, generally saves more lives than it harms, and provides monetary benefits to the people who use vaccines. The ultimate conclusion is that the government should force vaccinations, in order to maximize public health and do what is best for the common good. Sources:(Please forgive me, because I don't have the links to some of the sources. )[1] Dr. Paul, Univ. of PA Medical & Dr. Louis, Pediatrics Chief, Children's Hospital of Physicians. Last accessed April 11, 2012. [2] . http://www.immunizationinfo.org...[3]American Academy of Pediatrics, "Why Does My Child Need to be Immunized? ," www. healthychildren. org (accessed Dec. 17, 2009) . http://vaccines.procon.org...[4] Arthur Allen, Author, Vaccine: The Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver (2007)[5] . http://www.nytimes.com...[6] Nancy Berlinger & Alison Jost, Hastings Center & Researcher in Bioethics at Yale, 2010, Three Shots at Prevention: The HPV vaccine and the politics of medicine's simple solutions, eds. K Wailoo, J. Livingston, S. Epstein & R. Aronowitz[7] Alan R. Hinman, et al. , Professor of Global Health, Emory University, 2002, "Tools to Prevent Infectious Disease: Child Vaccination: Laws that Work," 30 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics[8] . http://www.medscape.com...[9] . http://www.willamette.edu...[10] Kevin M. Malone & Alan R Hinman, 2003, Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights" in Law in Public Health Practice[11] Thomas May & Ross D. Silverman, BioethicsProfessor – Medical College of Wisconsin and Southern Illinois University, 2005, "Free Riding, Fairness and the Rights of Minority Groups in Exemption from Mandatory Childhood Vaccination," Human VaccinesREMAINING SOURCES IN COMMENTS |
40 | b26badf8-2019-04-18T14:17:30Z-00005-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | should the death penalty be harsher should the death penalty be harsher |
17 | e00385e6-2019-04-18T19:34:57Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp I will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an "enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: "The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. " Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues "The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. " Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 "The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. " Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association "Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. " Reference: "Medicinal Use of Marijuana" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health "[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. " Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association "Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. " Reference: BMA report: "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for "a very small number of individuals" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3� ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to "eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you. |
11 | dfa0f2e4-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs |
37 | 240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00066-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. |
27 | dbe0f23e-2019-04-18T14:36:42Z-00004-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | July Tournament C1) SuicidesA) Gun StorageHarvard Injury Control Research Center analyzed a number of national random-digit dial telephone surveys and found that, "Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner." And that, "Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely."(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)In, "a national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults… of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22 percent had a loaded gun, 32 percent had an unlocked gun and 8 percent had a gun stored loaded and unlocked."http://archive.sph.harvard.edu..."More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked. Because the guns used in youth suicides and unintentional injuries primarily come from victims' homes, storage practices that allow for easy access to a firearm pose a threat to the safety of young people."(http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...)Via the inability to store firearms properly; a teenager going through the extremely difficult time of adolescence has easy access to a weapon that they should not have. Whether that means that they bring it to school to show off to friends, to kill numerous classmates, or to kill themselves. Now while a substantial amount of teenagers wouldn't take advantage of this easy access for harmful uses, the fact that any amount could is too many.This easy access to firearms poses many other problems as well. Anyone with a mental disability, or falsely identifying a friend/family as an intruder, or someone who is drunk, someone who is on drugs (not in their right mind), a marital fight, a toddler or young child mistaking it for a toy, etc. could all end in an unwanted death.This ease of access to firearms spawns more homicides, more suicides, more accidental shootings, and more deaths.B) Firearms & SuicideI."Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment…states with more guns had higher rates of suicide." (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Owning a gun is a dangerous possession to have; you will actually be three times more likely to choose to commit suicide than someone who doesn't own a gun. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)II."In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death."(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)What we can draw from the evidence is two things:(1) Most suicides are done by firearms.(2) Suicide by firearm is the most lethal method as 85% end in death.Now while a ban on firearms will not decrease the amount of people that will commit suicide, it will save lives.Poison:For every successful suicide by poison, there are 42 attempted suicides by poison. That's a 2.38% fatality rate.(http://lostallhope.com...)Cutting Wrists/Arms/Legs:A 6% fatality rate, for around every 17 attempts, only 1 succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Overdose on Drugs:A 12.3% fatality rate, for every 8 attempts, only one succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Hanging:75% fatality rate, for every 4 attempts, 3 succeed.(http://www.medscape.com...)If someone fails to commit suicide, they are rushed to a hospital where they are treated for their injuries. Then they are taken to get treatment to help their depression, this treatment works 80-90% of the time and the victim does not commit suicide again.(http://www.save.org...)"Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help."(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)Many people who commit suicide don't actually want to die; they just want help with their problem. Having a suicide attempt less likely to be successful gives the victim the opportunity to seek help, fix their problem, and save their life. A ban on guns fixes this issue.C2) Firearm Accidents"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…"(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Firearms are extremely deadly weapons; therefore extreme caution and responsibility are necessary when handling them. Despite the aggressive training required to get a license;"Take a 14-hour course (8 hours classroom, 6 hours range) in the carrying and use of firearms given by a Bureau- certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau certified training facility… Pass the written and range exams given at the end of the course"(http://www.bsis.ca.gov...)This goes to show that despite intensive training measures, gun accidents still occur.Firearm accidents are also much more likely to occur than other harmful accidents. For example, poison containers come with lids that are generally more difficult to remove and knives require very solid pressure in certain areas on the body to be fatal, all a gun requires is a pull of the trigger.Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave the person who committed the act with a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life.With gun accidents sending 200 people to the emergency room every day, and thousands of people with gunshot wounds every year, we have to realize that guns are not worth the risk.C3) HomicideA)"Handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from… or homicide (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.7), and particularly among those dying from… or gun homicide (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.3), than among controls. No such differences were seen for non-gun suicide or homicide… Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths."The study concluded that; "Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun…legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"(http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...)Evidence shows that the act of purchasing a handgun significantly increases your chances of a violent death. These statistics match what you would expect from a society where guns are legal. If someone is wielding a gun against an attacker who just wants to steal some items from their home, they are placing both themselves and the attacker at greater risk of death in the process.B)"Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention."(http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)Of the 12, 765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with guns. That's 69.4% of all murders performed with a firearm.(http://www.infoplease.com...)If guns are banned, a murderer will have to use some other type of weapon that is less effective than a gun would be. A ban on guns would lower the effectiveness of murders and save the lives of murder victims.Conclusion:The United States should enact a nation-wide ban on all firearms to; reduce suicide rates, reduce deaths from accidents, and reduce homicide rates. |
7 | 70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | 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. |
23 | b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Abortion The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [49] Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation." [113] Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [31] [32] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [49] Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. [135] [145] Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. [11] Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. [14] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [158] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [152] Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity. [12] It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said "many couples... don"t have the resources, don"t have the emotional stamina, don"t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome]." [9] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [114] [73] Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below the federal poverty level. [13] A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. [19] An Oct. 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less when they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty. [136] A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [75] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [50] Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance. [129] [130] http://abortion.procon.org... |
30 | a6ba8b64-2019-04-18T19:54:44Z-00004-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Right-to-Carry States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns." thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member |
19 | 42a968d1-2019-04-18T19:17:25Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal in the United States. Thank you for your quick response. I'm just going to cut to the chase here over the relevant points of the debate. The one contention that is actually going to matter here at the end is whether or not marriages need special legal rights. My opponent brings up hospital visits as an example. However, why have hospitals restrict who visits you in a hospital? Shouldn't that decision be up to you? Therefore, in response to this "marriage right," I propose that hospitals collect lists from everyone listing who they'd wish to allow to visit them in a hospital emergency. This would result in no possible discrimination whatsoever, except at the whims of the person being visited, where the power fully deserves to be. You want to let your girlfriend in? Sure. Your co-workers? Sure, except Jim. Uncle Joe? Nah, too creepy. A gay could let their gay lover in. A polygamist could let in all of his wives. The end result is less government (win) and more liberty (win). It's a clear win-win situation. Now, to address even more "marriage rights" [1]: Most of these, especially the tax benefits, are simply discriminatory tax cuts, which my opponent has conceded are unnecessary. For Estate Planning Benefits, both people should simply write wills when they're married. The numerous exemptions listed are merely more discrimination against non-married people. For Government Benefits, a person should simply state who they would wish to share benefits with. Maybe two roommates wish to share social security benefits without being known as gay. I don't know. For military benefits, a person signing up could be asked who they would like to receive benefits from their service, which could be parents, a girlfriend, etc. Employment Benefits, Housing Benefits, and Consumer Benefits are all part of the private sector, so people could work that out amongst themselves, with no unnecessary government interference. Medical Benefits were already covered by the above example, although the list could include who a person would wish to handle medical affairs should he become incapacitated. Maybe you're in college, and your roommate knows you best, and you want your roommate to make the decisions. Why should government stop you? Family Benefits include adoption of children (which could easily be taken care of during the adoption, rather than during the marriage, so the government involvement in marriage is unnecessary), division of money in a divorce (easily handled by a joint bank account that covers the value of all possessions), and child custody (which, again, should be handled at birth or at adoption rather than at marriage), leaving no reason for government involvement in marriage, but rather in parenting. For Death Benefits, one could simply include in their will who they'd wish to manage the affairs of their death. Your best friend? Sure. Your parents? Sure. Your spouse? Sure. If your spouse dies with you? Uh, parents. See? Why restrict people's liberties? As for other Legal Benefits and Protections, I'd like to pick who I want to represent me in court when I die. The martial communications privilege is an example of discrimination against non-married people. For the crime victim recovery benefits, I'd like to select who receives that myself. We should not give immigration and residency privileges through marriage, because that encourages marrying for citizenship, and we've probably already got some undercover business involved in marrying and divorcing for money in exchange for free citizenship. Visiting rights in jails are the same as for hospitals, although jails might put a cap on the number of people who can visit at once or total. There. Every single right that my opponent cited should not be restricted to married peoples only. Therefore, there is no reason for government involvement in marriage. Now that I've established that, I'll switch back to refuting the relevant contentions. Contention 2: The Utility Factor My opponent claims that he claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts. However, he did not. The rights from the legalization of gay marriage besides tax cuts were only brought up in this last round. He has now claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts, and no sooner. Additionally, I have already shown that the rights of marriage are discriminatory, and either nobody should get them (tax cuts, exemptions, etc.) or everybody should get them (hospital visits, inheritance, etc.). Contention 3: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. "Mongeese argues that by legalizing gay marriage we would inevitably have to allow pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality. However, he does this without showing why gay marriage would lead to pedophilia or bestiality." My opponent thinks that gay marriage would have to "lead" to polygamy. However, polygamy already exists [2], and has always existed, and is probably even older than gay marriage itself. People are currently trying to gain polygamy rights [3]. Therefore, to assume that gay marriage must "lead" to polygamy for polygamy to exist is fallacious in itself. Contention 2: It is discriminatory for marriage to be legal in the United States. "I did no such thing. And in case you have become confused let me once again state that I'm advocating for government recognized gay marriages. I've never switched my argument in favor of non-government recognized marriages." My opponent did such a thing when he claimed that tax cuts weren't necessary. However, now that he has added marriage rights, this is no longer the case. However, I have already defeated the marriage rights above. Additionally, he asks why granting benefits to certain people but not others. This is what discrimination means [4]. My opponent then cites legal protection for married couples that really should be accessible by anyone. See the list above. Contention 3: The United States lacks the power to legalize gay marriage. "My opponent has entirely dropped his third argument and probably hopes that you won't notice." Why would I hope that one of my arguments goes unnoticed? I'm merely dropping the argument, like I did with the Harm Principle, because I don't disagree with any part of the Harm Principle. Conclusion Analysis: "[M]y opponent has ignored both of my arguments regarding the constitutionality of gay marriage." That's because I've directed my argument at the necessity of it. I have involved no discrimination in my case. "...if we were to legalize gay marriage we would also have to legalize bestiality, pedophilia, and marriage to inanimate objects." Anything short of that would be, as I've said, discriminatory. "From there he decides to abandon his third argument..." I've dropped the argument, as I no longer need it. "Consequentially, the outcome of this debate should be obvious." Why, yes, it should. "People have the right to marry the person of their preference..." Absolutely. "...and enjoy the legal protections that go along with that marriage." No, because those legal protections are discriminatory, and should be available to all, married and non-married. "I have conclusively shown this using both the constitution and teleological ethics." My opponent seems to think that he has justified discrimination. He is quite wrong. "...our government helps foster the social stability that is overall beneficial to children and their parents." Amazingly, the entire article about marriage's benefits did not mention government at all, so my opponent's contention is irrelevant. Government is not needed. "(Vote Pro)" I have shown all government involvement in marriage to be completely discriminatory against non-married people. Vote Con. 1. http://www.nolo.com... 2. http://people.howstuffworks.com... 3. http://www.pro-polygamy.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00008-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as "Judea and Samaria". Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3) |
8 | 6702c862-2019-04-18T12:51:56Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Moral Argument:The fetus growing inside the mother is a living being; but, it is not part of the mother. It is a separate human entirely. Therefore, killing it would not only be illegal, but immoral as well. First, fetuses have their own blood type. During the third week after the female has been fertilized, these developments happen (they count two weeks for her period and the ideal time for intercourse to conceive a child. The third week is when the actual fertilization and sexual intercourse occurs.):"Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.It is during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medicines, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors." (1)A part of a woman's body does not have its own organs and even blood type. Those are characteristics of a person. A baby can feel pain around eight weeks after conception. (2) Most abortions occure before eight weeks (52.6%). However, 47.4% of abortions happen at the eight week mark and over. (3) This means that the baby is feeling pain seperate from the mother; as well as its own organs ceasing to function.A part of a woman's body does not experience seperate pain of its own body and body parts.With the fetus showing characteristics seperate from its mother, we can only naturally assume it's its own unique, functional human being.This is distrubing. It's footage of a child being aborted. If you would like to see my points in action, here you go.Case 2: Women's Mental Health After AbortionWomen who consent to an abortion suffer from mental health problems after the abortion. Not only is the baby being murdered, the mothers' mind is being killed as well. A quote from my source:"After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratio.This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services." (4)Which such a significant sample size, there is no room to doubt the result of the study. Women who experience abortions are significantly more likely to experience mental health problems post-operation. If you still aren't satisfied with my source, allow me to provide more studies to back up my claims."Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems" (5)"The State of California pays the costs of childbirths and abortions for low income women. A study of 173,279 California women who had a state funded childbirth or abortion in 1989 found that 53 of them committed suicide within eight years of their childbirth or abortion. A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:" (6) Taking Care of The Child:Many adoption clinics actually offer many financial benefits to help with the pregnancy. The mother can even decide which parents the baby will have."All of our staff are friendly and love to work with our birth mothers. You'll have free housing during the adoption so you can be stress free. You'll have help paying your bills. You have the choice between an open, closed or mixed adoption. You choose your baby's family." (7) Rape and Incest:Not only can it not be proven that incest and rape actually happened, a very small percentage of abortions use the excuse of rape of incest. only 0.3% of abortions are caused by rape. Only 0.03% of abortions are due to incest. (8) If they were, why not just birth the child and put it up for adoption instead of ending a life?Unwanted Child and Drugs:Again, adoption. There are programs to help the child if addicted to crack/other drugs. Why would that even be a justification to kill the baby? Oh, the baby may be born addicted to crack so let's just kill it now. I don't want the baby so let's just kill it instead of putting it up for adoption and giving it a chance to live.Question Response:There isn't really a compromise. Many people are on one side of the spectrum. I believe in stopping abortion to save unborn lives.Arigatou GuzaimasuAnime OP:1. https://medlineplus.gov...2. http://www.abortionfacts.com...3. http://www.abort73.com...4. http://bjp.rcpsych.org...5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...6. http://www.justfacts.com...7. http://adopt.hearttoheartadopt.com...8. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... |
34 | e663279e-2019-04-18T14:09:42Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Technology should replace human labor Section 1. Technology actually ruins educations and makes us dumber than my oponent thinks. In this section I will delve in the eight ways that technology does this. Smart phones and computers emit a blue- enriched light that disrupts our melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that controls when we feel sleepy, this blue light messes up the process and we lose the ability to stay on a sleep schedule. The loss of sleep can cause increased bad attitudes, decreased focus at work, loss of memory and loss of brain tissue. This could kill your social life as no one would no longer want to be around you. Technology makes it easier to get distracted, especially when it comes to teenagers. A 2012 survey at Pew Research Center, taken by more than 2,400 teachers show that today's students are more distracted by technology than previous generations. The survey shows that 87% of teachers agree that digital technology is creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans while 64% agreed that it's doing more harm to their education than helping them. This can damage careers because this same generation, and future generations are going into the workforce, and with them comes that short attention span. They'll spend more time on their phone or computer than actually work, and in return, they'll get fired. When they go to tell other companies why they got fired, they will probably not be hired, adding on to the number of unemployed. Technology makes it difficult to remember anything and/or make new memories. Nicholas Carr explains in The Shallows that there are two types of memory, Transient working memory and long term memory. Information needs to be transferred to long-term memory in order to be remembered, but the simplest act of checking your mail of a text will cause that information to be erased from all reaches of your mind. Also, when we look at out mail, text or Facebook we take in more information than our brains are supposed to. It's pretty much like filling a glass of water for long periods of time. The water on top will spill out making room for more which will also spill out eventually. This creates difficulties learning. Technology outsources our brains. We rely on it to remember everything for us. This causes us to not use our brain, which in turn means we're not thinking. There was a time when we'd turn to our friends if we didn't know something, but no a days we rely too much on technology. In 2013 a Trending Machine Survey was released to the public. In response, Patricia Gutentag, a family and occupational therapist, said that technology was the main culprit. She claimed that "This is a population that has grown up multitasking using technology, often compounded of lack of sleep, all of which results in high levels of forgetfulness" When you dismiss all distractions, your brain still won't take in any information if you're reading online. Hypertext is the cause of this. Those colorful links make your brain work harder than it usually would leaving you with less brain energy for reading. Reading online in general causes diminishing comprehension. According to a study in 2010, people who rely of GPS systems to get around have less activity in their hippocampus which is a part of your brain that helps with memory and navigation. The use of a GPS operated car, like the google car, causes people to have memory problems later in life. No matter what, they'd still have memory problems, and that's bad. Another study in 2008 shows that taxi drivers have a more well developed hippocampus than non-taxi drivers, because taxi drivers usually don't use a GPS, so they get around using spatial memory. Last but not least, internet is a drug. Yes. People can get addicted to the internet. Gamer's will even sacrifice food, school and sleep just to play games for days on end. This causes them to have a strange grey and white matter in their brain which cripples the regions that process emotions and regulating attention/decision making. Also, people have died from these addictions. One reason is because they'll sit for so long that all the blood will leave their legs and when they stand up, that sudden rush of blood into the legs proves too much for their bodies to handle so all their organs shut down. Another reason is that the lack of using their brain can distort their reality so they'll go around attacking and killing "enemies" to get money or other things. Though all this technology is bad, I'll admit that some tech. isn't bad and can actually help. People listening to music usually work harder and faster than those who don't. Also, people who listen to music while working seem to excel more than those who don't. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://listverse.com...Section 2: My oppoent claims that he isn't talking about completely replacing the human work force, but he also complains that it would do more harm than good. This claim still conflicts with our country's economy. Each "robot" costs somewhere between $20,000- $22,000, most of everyone's money will go into buying those. Honestly, I think companies would have a much easier time paying human workers, it'd be cheaper too. In Britain, 10 million jobs are at risk because they're planning on replacing the people with technology. That is 6.41% of the British population. Currently 5.5% of Britain's population is unemployed. That's a lot of people. Their unemployment rate is currently at 79.3% that's a bit high. This is above the level of natural unemployement, this means that they're currently experiencing inflation, which we all know greatly damages an economy. Taking away those 10 million jobs won't help them in anyway. It'll just send them deeper into the hole. Knowing this, technology wouldn't come anywhere close to helping us, even if we only replace a few jobs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.quickmba.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 3: The internet is harmful. There are countless numbers of people who are sending fake emails that contain viruses and hacking into accounts to get ahold of someone's personal information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.). The FBI even said that Social Networking alone holds a great risk because of computer savvy hackers who are more than happy to hack your accounts randomly and install unkown software that more than likely has a virus or two in them. Also, companies put cookies on your accounts evertime you visit a site. They use this to pratically steal personal information and spy on you to see what you like. The Google Car was even banned because it was originally used to personal information. Google knew about it too. The company claimed it to be a mistake, but if it was I'm sure they'd have found it and fixed it before releasing it to the public. So far the car has been recalled and is currently illegal due to this situation. https://www.fbi.gov... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 4: Like I explained early and in the last round. Technology would do more harm to the economy than one would think, no matter how many people are replaced.Section 5: I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong so I asked a friend who's currently studying economics and he said that the current percentage of people unemployed in America is 5.5%Section 6: Though technology would create new demand for jobs, those jobs will already be filled with already working humans. Even if they hire new people, there would still be a massive amount of people unemployed. Section 7: The fewer the hours people will have to work, the higher the paycheck they'll need. If minimum wage and other such payments are raised, then the prices of everything will surely follow as I have explained in my last economic debate. This, will also help plunge us into an extremely deep inflation. http://www.debate.org... |
4 | 3943235e-2019-04-18T19:57:53Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | School vouchers But what would determine the competition? And would those who "lost" in the competition be stuck in even more underfunded schools? I understand you are interested in the idea of vouchers but I don't think you understand what they would entail, or at least the type you're implying. The difference between private schools and public schools is mostly that private schools have a lot more money, so instead of offering The $20,000 for one student to go to a private school, why don't we give the money to public schools? Vouchers would exclude all the people that the school system really needs to help, and if the government were ever to actually spend that much, it'd be much more beneficial to go to public schools. |
9 | a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should wear school uniform. I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place? |
38 | 174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana ====== Rebuttal ====== [QUOTE] 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. [/QUOTE] The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make "medical marijuana" contain only 3% THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? [QUOTE] 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) [/QUOTE] Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal. [QUOTE] 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. [/QUOTE] This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc... Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation. Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse. Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others causing them to go insane and crime rate may possibly go up and thus, this would do harm to others. ======= Arguments ======= 1)People say that marijuana can make the user "happy." Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. 2)What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. 3)It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. 4) Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana. ===== Sources ===== http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.justice.gov... |
3 | ec2de89b-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Gay marriage should be allowed No further arguments. .. . thank you to my opponent for participating I still believe gay couple should be allowed to be legally " together" or wed, and hope that will change in the soon future. Thank you! |
23 | 4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off. " It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O'Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across. |
24 | 42c5785f-2019-04-18T15:25:56Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | For GOD so loved the world!? NO HE DOES NOT! HE hates this world and chose a certain people! My opponent quoted John 3:16, yet he failed to realize who Christ was speaking to. If you go to John 3:1 it states who HE was speaking to. "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. So, HE was speaking to the JEWS. My opponent then quotes Romans 5:8, yet he failed to acknowledge that in Matthew 15:24 Christ specifically told a Gentile woman that he was sent unto the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL. The lost sheep are not literally animals, they are the ISRAELITES. Romans 11:1 – "I say then, hath GOD cast away his people? GOD forbid. For I also am an ISRAELITE of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Well obviously this verse is refereeing to the ISRAELITES, since Paul says, "I also am an ISRAELITE." My opponent quotes Galatians 2:20, but doesn't acknowledge the verses before V20. V13 states "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. V14"But when I saw that they walked no uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them al, If though, being a JEW, livest after the manner of Gentiles-not ISRAEL-, and not as do the JEWS, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the JEWS? It is clear that in this verse Christ is asking Peter that if he is a JEW living like the Gentiles do, and not living as the JEWS do, why would he force the Gentiles to live as the JEWS do. V15"We who are JEWS by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, V16"Knowning that a man is not justified by works of the LAW, but by the faith of Christ, even we have believed in, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the LAW: for by the workes of the LAW shall no flesh be justified. V17"But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? GOD forbid. V18"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. V19"For I through y LAW, am dead to the LAW, that I might live unto GOD. V20"I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheles, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith of the son of GOD, who loved me, and gave himself for me. So it is clear that Galatians 2:20 is once again, is referring to the JEWS. He quoted Ephesians 2:4-5, yet again failed to recognize the additional verses after V5. In V12, the land of ISRAEL is again mentioned. In Zephaniah 3:17, GOD is referring to the ISRAELITES. My opponent again did not acknowledge the verses before V17. In verses 13-16 ISRAEL and JERUSALEM are mentioned several times. V13"The remnant of ISRAEL shall not doe iniquity, nor speak lies: neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed, and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. V14"Sing, O daughter of ZION (JERSUALEM): Shout, O ISRAEL: be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of JERUSALEM. V15"The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the KING OF ISRAEL, even the LORD is in the middest of thee: thou shalt not see evil anymore." V16 – "In that day it shall be said to JERUSALEM, Feare thou not: and to ZION, Let not thine hands be slacke." So it is clear again that V17 in CH3 of Zephaniah, is referring to ISRAEL/JERUSALEM. Now my opponent mentions 1 John 4:7-8. What my opponent does not acknowledge, is who the "us" is. The "us" is the ISRAELITES and I will back that up with Deuteronomy 7:8, which states, "But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the othe which he had sworn unto your fathers, hat the LORD brought you out of the mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Who did GOD deliver from Egypt? The ISRAELITES; so the "us" referred to in 1 John 4:7-8 are the ISRAELITES. My opponent quoted 1 Peter 5:6-7, but didn't acknowledge the verses before V6-7. V2 in 1 Peter CH5 mentions the "flock of GOD." You may ask, "Well who/what is the flock of GOD?" The flock of GOD is a metaphor for YAHUAH'S chosen people, the ISRAELITES. Consider a shepherd; a shepherd is a ruler over people; a leader who exercises authority over a group of people. 2 Samuel 7:8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David: Thus sayth the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheep-coat, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over ISRAEL. 1 Chronicles 17:7 "Now therefore thus shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the Sheep-coat, even from following the sheep, that thou shouldest be ruler over my people ISRAEL." So it would be clear, according to the verses before 6&7, and the verses I quoted from 2 Samuel &1 Chronicles, that 1 Peter 5:6-7 is once again referring to the House of ISRAEL/the ISRAELITES. My opponent quoted Psalms 86:15. You must keep in mind that Psalms 86:15 is a prayer of David, and David was an ISRAELITE; David was ruler over the ISRAELITES. He quoted 1 John 3:1, yet he failed to acknowledge who the "children of GOD" are. Again, the "children of GOD" are the ISRAELITES. Exodus 4:22-23 – "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, ISRAEL is my son, even my first borne." ISRAEL is Jacob, Isaac&Rebekah's son, Esau's twin brother. GOD changed Yacob's name to ISRAEL. V23 – And I say unto thee, let my son (Yacob/ISRAEL) go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son (Pharaoh's son), even thy first borne." Yacob had 12 sons; 6 by Leah; 2 by Zilpah; 2 by Bilhah and 2 by Rachel. Yacobs 12 sons are the 12 tribes of ISRAEL and they are all GOD's children. So when a verse states "children of GOD" it is simply referring to all of those that belong to the 12 tribes of ISRAEL. My opponent once again, was unsuccessful at acknowledging that Deuteronomy 7:9 is once again, in reference to the ISRAELITES. V8 of Deuteronomy chapter 7 states, ""But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the othe which he had sworn unto your fathers, hat the LORD brought you out of the mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Again, who did GOD deliver from Egypt? The ISRAELITES. V9 is GOD speaking to the ISRAELITES. My opponent quotes Proverbs 8:17; he fails to realize that this verse is once again speaking of JERUSALEM, ISRAEL. V2 of the book of Proverbs chapter 8 states, "She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths." "She" is referring to JERUSALEM, ISRAEL. 1 Samuel 2:30 quotes Proverbs 8:17; 1 Samuel 2:30 – "Wherefore the LORD GOD of ISRAEL saith, I sayd indeed that thy house, & the house of thy father should walk before me forever: but now the LORD saith, Be it farre from me; for them that honor me, I will honor, and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed." He failed to acknowledge, John 13:34-35 is referring to the JEWS. V33 in the book of John chapter 13 says, "Litle children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me, and as I said unto the JEWS, whither I go, ye cannot come: so now I say to you." These verses clearly contradict what my opponent is saying! Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of ISRAEL. Psalms 135:12 And gave their land for an heritage: an heritage unto ISRAEL his people. Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Christ; for he shall save HIS people from their sins. Numbers 21:6 And the LORD sent fierie serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of ISRAEL died. Acts 2:21-22 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD, shalbe saved. V22 Yee men of ISRAEL, hear these words, Christ, a man approved of GOD among you, by miracles, wonders, and signs, which GOD did by him in the midst of you, as yee yourselves also know. Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I love, but Esau have I HATED. Matthew 15:24 But HE answered, and said, I am NOT sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Christ said HE is not sent for anyone else, but Israel. 2 Esdras 6:9 For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob (ISRAEL) is the beginning of it that followeth. (Esau is also mentioned in Genesis 25:21–26) John 17:9 Christ said, I pray for THEM, I pray NOT for the WORLD: but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Christ said, "I pray for THEM that thou hast given me; what does that mean? Who is given to Christ? The Israelites are given to Christ! Who are GOD's elect? Israel-Yacob. James 4:4 Ye adulterers, and adulteresses, know yee not that the friendship of the world is enmity (hatred) with GOD? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of GOD. Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. REVELATION 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundredth and forty and four thousand, of all the tribes of the children of ISRAEL. V5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. V6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. V7Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. V8Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. |
23 | 27275881-2019-04-18T12:45:40Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | EUTHANASIA not be legal You say that people must die but you are wrong. God is death and god is life. He decies. Euthanasia dose not help for the diseases for today!!!. May it be cancer for the old, they should live to see the world to the end |
26 | c0f0e6ae-2019-04-18T13:12:59Z-00006-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Jesus isnt God he's The begotten Son of God The Scriptures proclaim that there is one, and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19) It also says that there is only one true God. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20) This means that all other gods are false. Since there is only one God, then no other being can truely be a god. This is why they are false gods. Now, Scripture plainly identifies the Son as God in John 20:28. The term "my God" refers to the true God every single time it is used in the Bible outside of John 20:28, establishig the consistent linguistic use of the term. Thomas here calls Jesus in the Greek, ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord of me and the God of me. So John 20:28 calls Jesus the God of Thomas, and in verse 29 Jesus approves. Now since there is only one true God, either Jesus was the true God in John 20:28, or a false god. Which is it? I look forward to my opponents answer. But Jesus is also identified as God in Isaiah 9:6. So which is it: is he a true god, or a false god? If he is a true god, then he must be the Almighty, for there is only one true God, not two; if he is a false god, we are not saved, for no pretender could save us. Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, stretched out the heavens alone, spread out the earth by himself; yet Scripture reveals the Father as creator (Isa 64:8), and the Son (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10), and the Holy Spirit (Ps 104:30; Job 26:13; 33:4) Combine this with the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:16 and the trinitarian has an airtight case. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not one God with the Father, then God the Father had help and did not create all things alone, by himself, as he said in Isaiah 44:24. If the trinity is true, harmony comes to the texts. At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares, "I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no Saviour." (WEB) Scripture tells us palinly that Jesus is the Saviour. (Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2 Pet 1:11, etc) So is Jesus Yahweh himself, or is he another Saviour besides Yahweh? Which is it? If he is Yahweh, then he must be one Yahweh with the Father. For there is only one Yahweh. (Deu 6:4) If he is not Yahweh, then he is another Saviour besides Yahweh, and Yahweh was lying when he claimed to be the only Saviour. Which is it? Acts 4:12 says of Jesus, that "there is no salvation in anyone else." Now, if Jesus is not God, then there can be no salvation in God, for there is no salvation in anyone else but Jesus. 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 "In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; and yet he really said to me: "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me." Here Paul prayed to the "Lord" Jesus three times and Jesus answered his prayer by saying: "My... power is being make perfect in weakness." Paul concluded by admitting that he would "rather boast ...that the power of (who?) the Christ may like a tent remain over me." So, here again, we see an example of a Christian in the Bible praying to the Lord Jesus with Jesus responding to the prayer with His "underserved kindness" and "power." (NWT) We are told about Jesus hearing our prayers again in 1 John 5:12-16 and Acts 7:59. This would not be so if Jesus were not God. I must at this point mention the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. This rule states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word "and," the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*Note that the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Having stated this rule I find it necessary to present two verses of scripture that unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior. Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope"the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV) 2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV) Notice in both verses the noun "God" (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun "Savior" (soteros) which does not have an article, by the word "and" (kai). Thus "God and Savior" both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God! So I think I have made a good case that Jesus is definitely God, and since there is only one God, then the Father and the Son must be one God. Now, onto the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit is God and Lord is clearly stated in the Scriptures. (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 3:17) The Holy Spirit has the same attributes of Deity as the Father and the Son: The Father is eternal (Ps 90:2), and the Son (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2), and the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14) The Father is omniscient (1 John 3:20), and the Son (John 16:30; 21:17), and the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-11) The Father is omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Ps 137:8-18), and the Son (Matt 18:20), and the Holy Spirit. (Ps 137:7) The Father is omnipotent (Dan 4:35), and the Son (Matt 28:18; John 17:10), and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 40:12-15) Definitions: Trinity: a tripersonal being (one being with three distinct minds) God: the divine nature, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, all-loving, etc. God: definition 2: any person who possesses divine nature. [Illustration: a scoop of flour is not the whole bag of flour, just as God the Son is not the entire Trinity, and yet, the scoop of flour is by nature flour, just like the whole bag of flour, and so to, God the Son is still by nature God, just like the entire trinity. He is part of the being that has that nature] Isaiah 46:9 says there is no one like God, but Jesus is so much like Him that if you see Him you see the Father. (John 14:9) Jesus was worshiped even though worship only belongs to God. (Heb 1:6; Matt 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 28:9, 17; John 9:38) Isaiah 40:3 speaks about preparing the way for the LORD (Yahweh). When we compare this verse with Mark 1:3 we see that Jesus is the LORD who had the way prepared for him by John the Baptist. In Joel 2:32a it says that whoever calls upon the Name of the LORD (Yahweh) will be saved. This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:21, and by Paul in Romans 10:13. Both apostles are clearly referring to Jesus as the LORD. In Isaiah 6:1-10 we read about the marvelous vision that Isaiah had revealing the glory of the LORD (Yahweh). John tells us in John 12:40-41 that this vision revealed the glory of Jesus. In Isaiah 44:6, the LORD (Yahweh) refers to himself as "the First and the Last". In Revelation 1:8 and 17, Jesus similarly refers to himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" and "the First and the Last". I look forward to seeing how you will show this evidence is not valid. You may try, but I'm sure you will fail, because the Trinity is so well established in the Bible, and this entails that Jesus Christ is God. I have proven Jesus is God in the context of the Trinity. Let me see how my opponent responds. |
4 | c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance. |
37 | 669a08bf-2019-04-18T19:03:49Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy Map: rebuttal then con's case. Clarifications: Nuclear energy: energy derived from nuclear power-plants Primary source: significantly increase of use. Alternative Energy: any energy sources except for coal and oil. 1a) Energy from the wind only cost .2c cents/kWh. This is cheaper than nuclear cost 2 cents per kWh. Therefore, overtime wind turbines are cheaper than nuclear power plants. "Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. NB these are the external costs only."(http://www.world-nuclear.org...) 1b) The cost to clean up an accident is tremendous on the taxpayers. And if we are to use nuclear more we are increasing the risk of an accident. "A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars[2] - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum." 2) Nuclear power-plant must be built near a large source of water to cool the system. This not only disrupts the ecosystem by changing water temperature but also there is a chance of a radiation leakage into the water, thus contaminating the source and the consumers. "High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world."-(TimeForChange.org) 3) Nuclear is not a green energy. Over time of extensive use of nuclear will produce steam (energy), steam will then steady increase global warming. Recyclable nuclear byproducts are currently under experiments, not only that but it is cheaper to buy new sources than to recycle nuclear waste. Nuclear mining and enrichment is dangerous to the environment through mutation. Nuclear reactors do not use only a few grams of uranium, they use by the ton. If reactors were to use only a few grams, we would not be fussing over waste disposal. 4) The US has excess unused land, especially in the desert. Solar panels and wind turbines would be perfect here. a) Wind turbines: cheapest, more reliable, very efficient, low maintenance rate, low accidental rate, and low maintenance cost. http://www.greenleft.org.au... b) Solar panels: cheaper, low maintenance rate, and low accidental rate. http://www.inhabitat.com... c) Hydro electric power is crucial to the ecosystem and to humans in energy, drinking water, and recreational. "There are many dams along the Colorado River, but not all of them produce electricity. In fact, the main reason the Hoover Dam was built and is operating today is not for its electricity production. The Hoover Dam and the other 50+ dams help control the Colorado River. That is, they control floods, irrigate crops, supply drinking water, make places for recreation, create habitat for wildlife, and generate electricity. Lake Mead, located behind the wall at Hoover Dam is the most important part of the Dam. It is the biggest man-made lake in the United States and provides drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix. Las Vegas gets almost all of its water from Lake Mead. While the electricity that Hoover Dam generates is important, living out here in the desert would be impossible without the flowing water of the Colorado River."-(http://www.eia.doe.gov...) Con's case: 1) Nuclear waste is costly and harmful. It take at least 10,000 years for uranium to be a bit safe. Maintaining these waste disposal is costly. Over 10,000 years? Overtime the cost will outweigh its benefits. 2) Dismantling a nuclear plant is very costly, more than solar panels and wind turbines. 3) Nuclear terrorism involving the waste are high and risky. Increasing usage would produce more waste and thus increasing the chances of nuclear waste being stolen and use as weapons known as the dirty bomb. "A direct hit by a penetrating 1,000-pound explosive (or equivalent) would likely inflict damage that would disperse tons of radioactive material. "Destruction of the main feed pump or steam lines," says David Rossin, a nuclear expert at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, "could create problems of decay heat and produce the release of fission products." Perhaps the most vulnerable nuclear material is in the spent fuel storage pool, according to Rossin, where unloaded core material does not have the same degree of protection as does the reactor core" 4) Uranium is not renewable. Within 30-50 years at this rate we would run out of uranium from mines. Not to mention all the nuclear waste produced. For the reasons above nuclear energy should not be the primary alternative energy. |
33 | 8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: "The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef."Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. "Shifting less than 1 day per week's (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers."I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier."The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes."Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on "hirs and his". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww! |
41 | 70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | 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. |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00015-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings. An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade.[1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers."[2] The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions.[3] Contrary to side proposition's assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system. Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero.[4] While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.[5] [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf |
43 | b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. "Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water." Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed. |
1 | 8e6e6464-2019-04-18T13:34:46Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Woman Should Get Drafted Women are better suited for non combat roles. Or at the very least they should have to pass the same tests that men pass to be in combat roles. |
8 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | 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;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
39 | 51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00001-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated. |
40 | abe4d9ff-2019-04-18T17:05:50Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty In my opinion, I believe that if someone murders another person they should be killed too. Once again the 15th amendment supports this statement. Punishment should fit the crime because it is just (Danzig). The death penalty is not to cause someone pain, it is for justice. There are ways to execute criminals that are not always cruel such as a gas chamber and lethal injections (Bohm). Overall the death penalty has been a part of American culture for years, and I do not think it is fair to reconsider things now. If criminals commit inhuman crimes I believe the death penalty is the correct sentence. |
11 | 6a9cc0cb-2019-04-18T16:29:23Z-00001-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Steroids should be legalized in sports. First of all, steroids gives one the ability to be stronger, it doesn't automatically make on stronger, it heals muscles after workouts quicker, letting you work out more--work harder.This is false. A review spanning more than three decades of experimental studies in men found that body weight may increase by 2–5 kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use, which may be attributed mainly to an increase of lean mass. Animal studies also found that fat mass was reduced, but most studies in humans failed to elucidate significant fat mass decrements. The effects on lean body mass have been shown to be dose-dependent. Both muscle hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers have been observed. The hydration of lean mass remains unaffected by AAS use, although small increments of blood volume cannot be ruled out.[5] The upper region of the body (thorax, neck, shoulders, and upper arm) seems to be more susceptible for AAS than other body regions because of predominance of androgen receptors in the upper body. The largest difference in muscle fiber size between AAS users and non-users was observed in type I muscle fibers of the vastus lateralis and the trapezius muscle as a result of long-term AAS self-administration. After drug withdrawal, the effects fade away slowly, but may persist for more than 6–12 weeks after cessation of AAS use.[5] The same review observed strength improvements in the range of 5–20% of baseline strength, depending largely on the drugs and dose used as well as the administration period. Overall, the exercise where the most significant improvements were observed is the bench press.[5] For almost two decades, it was assumed that AAS exerted significant effects only in experienced strength athletes, particularly based on the studies of Hervey and coworkers.[23][24] In 1996, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated, however, that even in novice athletes a 10-week strength training program accompanied by testosterone enanthate at 600 mg/week may improve strength more than training alone does.[5][25] The same study found that dose to be sufficient to significantly improve lean muscle mass relative to placebo even in subjects that did not exercise at all.[25] A 2001 study by the same first author, showed that the anabolic effects of testosterone enanthate were highly dose dependent. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] So, you are wrong in your claim that steroids simply heal muscles. Empirical data shows that steroids can significantly increase lean muscle mass and improve ability in exercises such as the bench press. Steroids directly increase athletes' strength. You say sports is a judge of someone's athletic prowess, and that is how much they practice and how much of an affinity one has for the sport. So, amount of time practiced is actually increased with steroids as I mentioned before. Judging the athletic prowess of a person and the athletic prowess of a person enhanced with steroids are very different things. This isn't to say that there would be no reason to test the athletic prowess of various people enhanced with drugs. But this implies that each person participating is taking the exact same amount of the exact same drug. Even if this could be monitored, that EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE participating in a given sport is taking the same stuff to preserve fairness, what you have now done is corrupted the sport. Now it is virtually impossible for someone who doesn't take the drug to go pro when everyone else is using drugs. In essence, you're forcing people who want to play professional sports to mess with their bodies and take drugs with questionable effects. And what if someone wants to watch sports where you don't have a bunch of artifically enhanced druggies? Also, steroids show the affinity of players-- it shows how they would take risks to succeed in something they love. With all due respect, are you serious? First, that isn't what I meant by affinity, although this is just a misunderstanding I suppose. By affinity I meant moreso talent. But regardless, why in the world would we want long-term and permanent damage to be mandatory for professional athletes? Who in their right mind wants to watch a ton of people do something RECREATIONAL while slowly harming their bodies? There are enough diseases and wars in the world that hurt people, that we don't need to add to damages with our recreational activities. Yes, steroids are harmful to the user's body, that is known, but are smoking and alcohol outlawed? Also, athletes know the risks of taking steroids, and that is their choice, we can't go making choices for them, they need to make their own decisions. In addition, stepping on any professional sports field is screwing up your body. In football and hockey, players crush each other, leaving brain and other injuries. In baseball, players put nearly 100 pounds of stress on their arms each time they throw. Every time someone plays pro sports, they are "screwing up their body" as you said. Players know this, but still take those risks, just like they should be allowed to for steroids. The only reason smoking isn't outlawed is because it is a custom borrowed from before we knew it was harmful. Alcohol isn't outlawed because it has little to no harmful effects at all if used reasonably. If we are comparing to other substances, how about illegal drugs like meth and crack cocaine? But that isn't even the main problem with steroids in sports. Even if you are a libertarian and hold that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't affect others, the primary problem with steroids, as I have mentioned, is corruption of every sport in which they are allowed. Your speech about "choice" makes you come off as some sort of libertarian. But any reasonable libertarian knows that the key qualification is that whatever the person does does not harm others. Corruption of sports in general and essentially kicking out anyone who doesn't also want to participate in your self-destructive actions is harmful to others. Hockey and football are unfortunate cases. I'll speak about football. Part of the essence of football is the violent tackling that occurs. This is a major problem and not a good thing. There are cases of children who received concussions that could cause massive permanent damage if not treated, but whose coaches hid the fact so that the children could continue playing. This is exactlly the sort of corruption of sporting I mean. It isn't worth it any more when the costs outweigh the small benefits of entertainment. If we allow steroids in sports, the same thing will happen, where coaches will make sure their children get on steroids while young. Do you know what kind of damage that does to the bodies of adolescents? You would have to ban steroids for younger people and allow it for older, but this is simply unreasonable. Steroids will make sports even more entertaining then they are now. Fans absolutely love records being broken and athletes playing at a higher and higher level. This is what players can achieve with steroids. If they don't want to risk their health in the future by taking steroids, then maybe they aren't cut out for an industry where it is all about doing everything to succeed. It is definitely going to make fans more appreciative of different sporting events. People will love it? Then why was there such a violent backlash when it turned out Lance Armstrong had used drugs? Fans liked it at the time because they thought it was legitimate, and this perfectly supports my point. When people found out the real reason for some of his success, he was removed from the Hall of Fame and even lost support for his cancer foundation. There is a common understanding among people that what athletes do means nothing if they are simply artifically enhanced to do so. |
24 | 5ad9ec0c-2019-04-18T17:16:35Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate The idea is that the top payroll tax for people should esentialy be targeted at the tax optimizing rate. We are going to need many more tax brackets to achieve this system. For this debate this will mean the government will attempt to estimate the tax optimizing tax rate for income above 1 billion dollars. Then all income above 1 billion dollars will be taxed at that rate. Tax rates will then be phased down below that level.Format:Round 1: Definitions and AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Summarize the round. No new arguments.EDIT: It seems I didn't define the tax optimizing rate. The tax optimizing rate is the rate at which increasing the percentage of tax decreases the total amount of tax money you receive. The idea is that at some level of taxation people's incentive to work declines so quickly that when you increase the tax rate you decrease the amount of tax collected. |
6 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | 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 |
26 | 213f86d5-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00007-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | students of public high-schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams Because I believe that students should have equal opportunity, I stand to affirm the resolution that Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Before we begin I would like to offer the following definitions: Standardized exit exam- (by the free online dictionary) is any empirically developed examination with established reliability and validity as determined by repeated evaluation of the method and results. My value for this round will be that of equal opportunity. This is defined as Policies and practices in employment and education that promote full participation and do not discriminate against persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, veteran status or sexual orientation. So this must be the value because it is the only way to promote full participation within schools. My Standard for this round will be that of fairness. In order to achieve equal opportunity, one must look to be fair. This should be the standard for a few reasons. First standardized tests do more harm than good. Next, they lead to more biased decisions by schools. And, finally, they do not show a students true intellectual capability. I contend that: a standard based assessment leads to major negative consequences By imposing standards on students' minds we are, in effect, depriving them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by applying one standard set of knowledge. Standardized tests oversimplify knowledge and do not test higher-order thinking skills. State standards are externally imposed on local teachers.
These mandatory assessments cannot work unless teachers understand and accept the philosophical underpinnings of standards. One-size-fits-all standards either dumb down instruction to the lowest common denominator or condemn low-ability students to frequent failure So being that these extremes exist hand in hand with standardized testing, we must assume that they occur. And since these extremes occur, they can negatively affect teachers teaching abilities and over all students' ability to learn from said teachers. Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology. Developing Learners. (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. A lot of school systems hold their schools accountable when test scores do not continually improve. They place an inordinate amount of pressure on teachers to raise students' test scores. They are not only pressured to raise student test scores, but to also raise the school average. Unfortunately, this can lead to dishonesty on the part of teachers and principals. They have no reason to include the scores of students with special needs and often try to find reasons why a student with special needs shouln't even take the test. This does nothing but harm the students who need special help. We cannot determine what kind of help they need if we do not know what level they are currently performing at. Dishonesty in schools is NEVER a good thing. We must conclude that if schools are to be dishonest and lie about test scores, then they might be compelled to lie about other things. Also, standardized test averages need to include everyone. Leaving out any kind of special needs kids is a bias that is again linked to dishonesty. If there were to be standardized testing, everyone must be included. So to prevent any kind of dishonesty abandoning the standardized exit exam is the best choice. One of the most devastating effects of high-stakes standardized testing is the emotional effect on students and teachers. Haladyna, T. M. (2002). Essentials of Standardized Achievement Testing. Validity and Accountability. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. After doing poorly on a test, low-achieving students become disillusioned and less motivated which leads to less effort to learn, starting a downward spiral that is very hard to break out of. Once they perform poorly on a test, they have no motivation to work hard for the next one and do poorly on that one once again, which in turn evokes more negative emotion towards learning. Teachers have even admitted that they begin to develop negative attitudes towards students that do not perform at an acceptable level. Not only do the students get depressed after poor results on a standardized test, but teacher morale is lowered. If we expect quality education to continue, we cannot keep an atmosphere that drives out more teachers than we can afford to lose. Lastly I contend that: standardized tests become a major problem when they are biased against students taking it. One of the biggest faults of standardized tests is that they often do not take diversity into account. Too many of today's tests are written so that only white, middle-class, English-speaking Americans can succeed. Other aspects of diversity that tests often times don't take into account include: Disabilities-These include physical disabilities, language delays, ADHD, visual impairments, and mental retardation. Test Anxiety-It is not an uncommon thing for students to get debilitating test anxiety. Debilitating test anxiety does not refer to the butterflies in the stomach or that moment of panic when the test is passed out. Instead it refers to the students who may freeze and cannot perform at all when faced with a test. Often times, this phenomenon is made worse when students think they will be punished in some way for a low score. High-stakes testing exacerbates test anxiety. (Haladyna, 160) Cultural Bias-It is only common sense to assume that a test item including information specific to the American culture (as some items do on some standardized tests) will be harder to answer for a student not familiar with that part of American culture. Language Differences-Often students, who are not native English speakers, have trouble on timed exams because they need more time to interpret the English language. Most standardized tests are timed and do not give students who have difficulty with the English language the extra time they need. Gender-There is probably not so much an inherent bias within the test, but the expectations held for each sex is vastly different. In addition, students who perform well in a non gender-appropriate subject are likely to be treated differently than a member of the opposite sex and conversely, a student who performs poorly in a subject they are expected to do well in will also be treated differently then a student of the same sex who performs poorly in a non gender-appropriate subject. So, among all the examples of bias that could happen, a standardized test can produce major problem within a testing environment. So it makes sense that to avoid any chance of bias abandoning standardized exams seems to be a logical conclusion. |
33 | 2e8edaf2-2019-04-18T17:50:40Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism "Animals have the right to life." On the other hand, plants are sentient beings too. Research has shown that plants respond electrochemically to perceived threats and may feel fear, so vegetarians too are causing harm in order to eat. "Derrick Jensen, "The Plants Respond: An Interview with Cleve Backster," The Sun, July 1997" "We have no utilitarian or moral reason to deny organisms of that desire." Every organism on earth eventually dies, and is consumed into the circle of life, either through consumption or decomposition. Meat provides more iron then a vegetable diet as well. The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources. There is nothing wrong with this cycle, but if we are going to pull morals and ethics into this debate, it is more ethical to save the vegetables instead of the animals. (Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Instututes of Health) "As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival." As the BoP rests on you, the instigator, to prove that it is not ethical that humans eat other animals. You offer no explanation of how this works, simply refer that it is our duty since we are "more evolved" Vegetarian diets cause animal deaths as well. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about 6 animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. (Steven L. Davis, "The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet," Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2003 ) "Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain." Monkeys are the closest things to evolutionary cousins to us; Plants can feel pleasure and pain as well. Finally, refer to the above statistic "The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism." That's good for him. The main, large, huge difference is that there is almost no difference between whites and blacks (aside from skin pigmentation and vulnerability to the sun) while humans and plants are entirely different species that are unable to communicate. "Now, obviously whites aren"t superior but if we use the criteria of measuring human superiority to other animals (intelligence) then it would be hypocritical for humans to claim superiority over other species but not over the some people with inferior intelligence such as the mentally ill." First of all, like I stated above, we cannot compare plants to humans. They are simply not of the same species. This is not anti-plant-ism, it is simply a scientific and widely believed fact. Also, we have nothing to gain in any way by killing the mentally ill. "It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so." Simply because we don't need to do it doesn't make it wrong...just because I don't need to chew gum doesn't mean it is wrong to chew gum. Also, as I stated, animals are killed during plant harvests...while they need not do so. "Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, because trees are being cut down to make room for cattle bred to kill." Vegetarian diets are not necessarily better for the environment. Please refer to these statistics: About 90% of US cropland suffers from top soil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate. (US Department of Agriculture (USDA)) US meat consumption does not significantly contribute to loss of US or global forest land. In 2001, about 95% of animal products consumed in the US were produced in the US. Despite the US consumption of about 27 billion pounds of beef per year, the percentage of forested US land has remained steady at around 33% since 1907. (US Department of Agriculture (USDA)) "Studies comparing vegetarians and meat eaters have found that eating less or no meat lowered the risks of certain health problems, including heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. " Cite your studies. Eating meat provides healthy saturated fats which can strengthen immune and nervous systems. They also contain vitamins A, D, E and K. Saturated fats are also essential for building and maintaining cell health, and help the body absorb calcium. Cholesterol from animal fat is needed for proper function of serotonin receptors in the brain. Low cholesterol levels have been linked to depression. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2002) Saturated fats from meat are not to blame for modern diseases like heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Chemically processed and hydrogenated vegetable oils like corn and canola cause these conditions because they contain harmful free radicals and trans fats formed during chemical processing. (Stephen Byrnes, "The Myths of Vegetarianism) and (Sally Fallon Morell, "Know Your Fats Introduction) "Vegetarians often come out on top in health studies" Vegetarians do not live longer. This myth stems from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious than the general population, eating a balanced diet, exercising more, and smoking less. If Person 1 is A(vegetarian) and B(health conscious) while person 2 is -A(Not a vegetarian) and B(not conscious of their own body), you cannot directly link one or the other to benefits; You need conclusive research, which I have. (Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers) "The ill-treatment and eating of animals is based on selfishness." The ill-treatment is, but the eating is not. The choice to choose what we want to eat is based off our ability to choose the better choice for humanity. It is a basic human liberty to pick what we eat. Yes, you may say that our desire to eat meat outweighs the animals "right" to live. However, no matter what we do, animals inadvertently are hurt. Whether you harvest crops, or make linen, or drill for oil, plants or animals are hurt. "The majority of these animals are confined to cages and crates or packed by the thousands into dark, filthy sheds." Modern slaughter techniques minimize the suffering of animals. US slaughterhouses must conform to the Humane Slaughter Act (HMSA) which mandates that livestock be stunned unconscious before slaughter. (Ingrid Newkirk, "Temple Grandin: Helping the Animals We Can't Save," prime.peta.org, Feb. 14, 2010) Now to my own points: First and foremost, humans have been eating meat for 2.3 million years, and it has been an essential part of our evolution. The inclusion of meat in the ancestral diet provided a dense form of nutrients and protein that, when combined with high-calorie low-nutrient carbohydrates such as roots, allowed us to develop our large brains and intelligence. Evidence shows our taste buds evolved to crave meat's savory flavor. (Christopher Joyce, "Food for Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter In many areas of the US, raising beef is the most efficient way to produce food for humans because about 85% of US grazing land is not suitable for raising crops humans can eat directly. Also, 98% of the American prairie is gone. So which is more efficient/better for the environment? (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) and (State Environmental Resource Center, "Biodiversity Policy Issues Package). Finally, there is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food. There is a growing movement in the US to raise "cruelty free" organic meat. In the US, animals raised for certified organic meat must be given access to the outdoors, clean air, and water. They cannot be given growth hormones or antibiotics and must be fed organically-grown feed free of animal byproducts. They live pleasant and short lives. |
17 | 9288ec5d-2019-04-18T17:02:55Z-00006-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana Should Be made legal throughout the world Hello, there. I smoke marijuana myself, but I will be taking the AGAINST part in this debate. So, let the best 'man' win. Greetings, Mrs. Artpop. |
37 | fac5e26a-2019-04-18T19:10:35Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Phone's in School And I apologize for my slow response. "There is nothing preventing said helpful student from contacting the individual that missed class after school" This may be true but what if the absent student needed to quickly finish the assignment because the missing student has a prior engagement that cannot be skipped/ avoided. The school office would hardly let the helpful student (for conventional purposes i shall now call him Timmy) call the missing student (I will call this missing student Sally) to tell her about what assignment/s she needs to finish. If phones were allowed in the classroom Timmy could text Sally and let her know what she needs to finish the moment Timmy knows. Thus this allows Sally to complete the assignment and turn it in on time the next day. "students texting each other in class is the same as talking in class (as it is just a non-vocal form of communication), which is traditionally not allowed during lectures or exams, because is interferes with the learning process and does disrupt the class. " This should not disrupt the class because the whole class is not recieving a text message just the student as long as the student does not tell others about what was said in the text message by talking ;the text message should not disrupt the class. Many students (even when phones arent allowed) text with their phone barely sticking out of their pocket, jacket pocket, and/or purse without dirsupting the class. I understand how you believe that texting in class would be diruptive to the child's learning but it seems to me that you are assuming children will recieve the text messages all the time during lectures. A policy that teachers can apply is to allow students about 45 secoonds every 7 or 8 min to allow students to check their phone's and reply. To recieve you must give a little. When students are not confined to being secretive and feel trapped about their texting many students will wait for that time to text back to whoever texted them in the first place. "most calculators in phones are sub-par. .. " This may be true but most calculators are in math classes where they belong not in all other classes. If a student needed a calculator for example Business Communication. You do not need a hyped-up calculator to figure percentages and money addition and subtraction in class. Just today I had a test in my Business Comm. class and I was allowed to use the calculator on my phone and it worked fine for myself and others who needed a calculator. Also if there are no calculators in your class you must leave class (disrupting the class) and go to a math class, take a calculator and leave (thus interrupting the learning process in the said math class. ) |
36 | 2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00003-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is better than soccer. i give up lol im too young to look up crap lol....13 yrs old baby! :P |
2 | 1dff01c3-2019-04-18T15:47:07Z-00000-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking should not be banned. It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's "common sense," what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say "There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking." Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying "smoking hurts you." You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. "Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them." It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. "Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope." Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. "Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them." Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. "So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad." You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! "Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold." You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. "The smoking ban removes freedom of choice." In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com... |
42 | 8b53d23a-2019-04-18T16:04:16Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | TROLL DEBATE: Jesus Christ Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent Jesus Was AsianJesus was born in Judea which is in Asia and as everyone knows Asian are OP because they can do everything including: Accounting and Finance Archaeology Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine Business Cancer Sciences Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences Celtic and Gaelic Central and East European Studies [including: Baltic, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Russian, Soviet Studies] Chemistry Classics Comparative Literature Computing Science Dentistry Economic and Social History [including: Global Economy] Economics [including: Development Studies, Financial Economics] Education [including: Adult Education, Community Development, Drug and Alcohol Studies, Organisational Leadership, Teaching] Engineering [including: Aerospace Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Software Engineering] English Language English Literature [including: Creative Writing] French Geographical and Earth Sciences [including: Geomatics] German Health and Wellbeing Hispanic Studies [including: Spanish] History History of Art [including: Textiles] Infection, Immunity and Inflammation Information Studies (HATII) [including: Arts & Media Informatics, Computer Forensics & E-Discovery, Information Management & Preservation, Museum Studies] Italian Law [including: Intellectual property, Legal Practice] Life Sciences Management [including: Entrepreneurship, International Business, Leadership, Marketing] Mathematics Medicine Molecular, Cell and Systems Biology Music Neuroscience and Psychology Nursing and Health Care Philosophy Physics and Astronomy Politics [including: Chinese Studies, Human Rights, International Relations] Psychology Russian Scottish Literature Sociology [including: Criminology, Global Health, Global Security] Statistics Theatre, Film and Television Studies [including: Cultural Policy, Drama, Dramaturgy, Journalism, Media Management, Performance Studies, Playwriting] Theology and Religious Studies Urban Studies [including: Housing Studies, Planning, Public Policy, Real Estate, Regeneration, Social Policy] Veterinary Medicine Aquatics Archery Automobile Racing Badminton Base Jumping Baseball Basketball Beach Volleyball Biathlon Bobsleigh Bocce Ball Body Building Boomerang Bowling Boxing Bull Fighting Camping Canoeing Caving Cheerleading Chess Classical Dance Cricket Cross Country Running Cross Country Skiing Curling Cycling Darts Decathlon Diving Dog Sledding Dog Training Down Hill Skiing Equestrianism Falconry Fencing Figure Skating Fishing Flag Football Foosball Football Fox Hunting Golf Gymnastics Hand Ball Hang Gliding High Jump Hiking Hockey Horseshoes Hot Air Ballooning Hunting Ice Skating Inline Skating Jai Alai Judo Karate Kayaking Knee Boarding Lacrosse Land Sailing Log Rolling Long Jump Luge Modern Dance Modern Pentathlon Motorcycle Racing Mountain Biking Mountaineering Netball Paint Ball Para Gliding Parachuting Petanque Pool Playing Power Walking Quad Biking Racquetball Remote Control Boating River Rafting Rock Climbing Rodeo Riding Roller Skating Rowing Rugby Sailing Scuba Diving Shooting Shot Put Shuffleboard Skateboarding Skeet Shooting Snooker Snow Biking Snow Boarding Snow Shoeing Snow Sledding Soccer Sombo Speed Skating Sport Fishing Sport Guide Sprint Running Squash Stunt Plane Flying Sumo Wrestling Surfing Swimming Synchronized Swimming Table Tennis Taekwondo Tchoukball Tennis Track and Field Trampolining Triathlon Tug of War Volleyball Water Polo Water Skiing Weight Lifting Wheelchair Basketball White Water Rafting Wind Surfing Wrestling Wushu Yachting Yoga http://www.youtube.com...Jesus ate potatoesIf you split Omnipotent to make omni and potent, potent begins with a P like potato and Jesus ate potatoes which means that Jesus is Omnipotent Jesus controls the NSA Jesus owns the NSA and the NSA control everything using a pyramid scheme which means that Jesus controls the world because through the NSA he can do anything, anything. |
4 | 2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Pro begins his argument by listing the supposed "pros" of corporal punishment. 1) Yes it can be argued that corporal punishment teaches kids discipline but I think that the reasons why it teaches discipline is appalling. Corporal punishment teaches kids to be disciplined out of nothing else but fear. There is no real or valid motive for a child to be disciplined as a result of corporal punishment apart from fear of physical pain. This is in effect isn't teaching children genuine discipline or the importance of discipline. Here are some other proven to work alternatives of disciplining students other than physical abuse (. http://www.webmd.com...). Why would corporal punishment need to be enforced as a means of discipline when there are plenty of other means. Not to mention the sheer problems associated with corporal punishment mentioned in my round 2 arguments. 2) You have no sources to back up the claim that corporal punishment actually deters bad behaviour. This article argues that corporal punishment doesn't deter bad behavior. (. http://getreadyforcollege.wordpress.com...) several case studies show that by repeated physical tortures children usually become even more adamant and might also start hating their elders as they do not understand the reason that why doing certain things are intolerable. On the other hand, disciplining without hitting would mean to first make the child understand that why certain behavior is acceptable and some are not. Teach the child some basic rules of the society and why are they to be followed. It has often been found that by giving logical reasoning to your child's answers, they can be stop many wrong deeds. This is also educating the child about conduct instead of making the child fear constantly. Here is a case study on both the negative physical and mental effects of corporal punishment:(. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...) 3) I'm not sure how "no suspensions" is such a pro of corporal punishment. Firstly students can still get suspended if corporal punishment exists in their school but surely suspension is more beneficial to a child than corporal punishment. Suspension 1)Removes a problematic student from school. 2)Provides temporary relief to frustrated school personnel. 3)Raises parental attention to their child's misconduct. It does all these things without the physical and physocological effects of corporal punishment. 4) Also I don't see how corporal punishment limits the amount of educational disruptions. Taking the time to give out corporal punishment in whatever form is much more of a disruption than telling a student to be quiet for example. Again there are many other effective means of punishment other than having to resort to physical violence, which as I have shown, has a great amount of disadvantages. Pro tries to argue that there are restrictions to corporal punishment e. g male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, however I do not see this as a valid argument. There may be restrictions to corporal punishment but this isn't really making a case on your stance that it should be enforced in school. I would like to state that The United States is the only nation in the western world which still permits corporal punishment in its schools. And even having said that, corporal punishment is banned in schools in 31 states. Statistics show that corporal punishment is on a decline. (. http://www.corpun.com...) This is another point for my case. There is obviously a reason for this decline. People are coming to their senses are realizing that the disadvantages of corporal punish enormously outweigh whatever advantages there might be, which I feel I have shown I look forward to the final round. |
29 | 8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship You stated that "if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico." I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that "plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty." Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, "on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans." Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that "also the illegals don't have to pay taxes." That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime. |
20 | e2d731b-2019-04-18T14:43:52Z-00005-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com... |
18 | 922fd121-2019-04-18T12:41:45Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | The church of Christ is the only church one must be in to be saved. My opponent states other churches worship the same as the churches of Christ does, I ask him to name just "one" other church that does. There is not one church on this planet today that worships like the churches mentioned in the bible, as they're all the same church, they were simply expressed in the bible this way. An example would be like when he was talking about the church in Ephesus, that church wasn't Ephesus, that was the location of the church, the church being spoken of, is the church of Christ. 1 Corinthians1:10, 10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Romans 16:16King James Version (KJV) 16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. Here's a list of the churches in the bible, as you can see throughout scripture that all of these are the churches of Christ, as they all worship the exactly the same way. a. Church of God b. The Way c. The seven churches in Asia The Seven Churches: Eras? The Seven Churches: Ephesus The Seven Churches: Smyrna The Seven Churches: Pergamos The Seven Churches: Thyatira The Seven Churches: Sardis The Seven Churches: Philadelphia The Seven Churches: Laodicea ================================================================================================== Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy is a valid technique, or else why would we be debating. If I didn't shift the burden of proof, I would only be making a statement for one just to read and not respond to, so no debate needed. My opponent says he doesn't have to prove that the churches of Christ are not the one true church, then I ask, why are you debating me? My opponent states that the information I gave with scripture doesn't prove that it refers to the churches of Christ, then I ask my opponent what church does it apply to, as there's only one church, as he stated and I agree, which proves there's only one way to worship God, that's why Jesus said he would build " my church "It is quite obvious that Matthew 16;18 refers to one church, , as this would make no sense otherwise. 3. Ephesians 4:5-6King James Version (KJV) 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, God has given us exactly how we are to worship him and how to set up the church, and the entire New Testament shows one way, unless my opponent can prove this false. The New Testament has elders, deacons, teachers and ministers, no Pope, no Cardinals, etc. a. Acts 20:28-31 b. 1 Tim. 3:5: c. 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Th. 5:12: d. Tit. 1:7: e. Heb. 13:17: f. 1 Pet. 5:2-3: Luke 6:40 1 Peter 2:21-22 "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." (KJV) King James Bible And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Matthew 28;20 KJV, 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:3 - If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; Revelation 13:1-18 - And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. (Read More...) 1 John 4:1-3 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (Read More...) 1 Timothy 1:3 - As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (Read More...) Galatians 1:6-10 - I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Read More...) ================================================================================================== My opponent states instruments were allowed in the Old Testament, but he seems to forget this is the new Testament era, and Jesus has authorized singing only as I have proven with scripture in the above argument. The verse states sing and make melody with your heart, the instrument being used is your "heart" , Ephesians 5:19King James Version (KJV) 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; God wanted no instruments to have the congregation praising him in spirit and in truth. Instruments are man made and have no way to edify or educate one, thus the reason for singing only, as words have meaning. God only wants what he created worshipping him ,not what man made. My opponent says it doesn't tell how one is to be baptized, I submit proof beyond any doubt that the way one is to be baptized is by immersion, which represents the death, burial and resurrection as one can see in these verses below. . 1 Peter 3:21 - The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Colossians 2:12-13 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Read More...) Ephesians 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. Romans 6:3-4 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Read More...) Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Matthew 3:16 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: Acts 8:38 - And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Colossians 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Romans 6:3 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? =================================================================================================== After the passing of the apostles there was an apostasy -- a falling away from the faith (Acts 20:29,30; I Timothy 4:1-4; II Timothy 4:1-4), which ultimately came to be known as the Catholic Church, with doctrines and practices not authorized by Christ and his apostles. In 606 A.D. Boniface III, Bishop of Rome, became the first "universal Bishop", later known as the Pope. In the Eleventh Century the Catholic Church divided into two groups, Roman and Greek, with the Roman Catholic becoming the greater of the two. Also I have provided additional proof via this site in which I have provided which explains in detail on when the Catholic church was established, https://youtu.be....... 3b. This site that I have provided will in detail explain when and why the Catholic church started and that they do not abide by the New Testament pattern, http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org....... =================================================================================================== In summary, Christians must learn from the New Testament, the law of Christ for all people today, how God wants to be worshipped today. The acts of worship required by God are plainly set forth in the New Testament. The Lord"s Supper The Lord"s supper or communion (1 Corinthians 10:16) consists of two things: (1) unleavened bread (without yeast) and (2) the fruit of the vine (grape juice). The purpose of the Lord"s Supper is to bring to our remembrance the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus on the cross for our sins (Matthew 26:26-29). We must be very careful when we partake of the communion that we discern the blood and body of Jesus so that we partake in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:23-30). Christians are to eat the the Lord"s Supper every first day of every week (Acts 20:7). Prayer Prayers offered to God are to be a part of our public worship as well as our private daily devotions. There are many examples and precepts concerning prayer in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 8; Philippians 4:6, etc.). In our prayers to God we give thanks and praise His name. In our prayers we can pray for our needs and for the needs of others. Jesus gave us a "model" prayer in Matthew 6:5-15. He did not intend for us simply to repeat this prayer by rote, but gave it as an example by which we could pattern our own prayers. Jesus Christ is our mediator and high priest. Therefore, our prayers must be addressed to God in the name of Jesus (John 16:23; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:14-16; 1 John 2:1-2). Preaching and Teaching God's Word. God has commanded us to teach His Word (Matthew 28:19-20). Both saved and sinners need to be taught. The evidence is clear that there's only one true church, that being the churches of Christ, Romans 16;16. |
48 | a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lowering the voting age Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us. |
42 | 22bdd4d3-2019-04-18T16:54:02Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | hockey is better basketball Thank you for your opinion."Firstly, from what I notice in both games, hockey requires much more skill."May I start off by saying you failed to say which game is more fun for the players or the fans. I'm going to go with the fans, so skill is not a valid argument. Skill would be for the players. "Secondly it involves more teamwork."You don't want to see teamwork in sports, you want to see a guy take it all the way and break a backboard with a dunk. Which looks more fun: I'm not even going to include the second one, the first one is that awesome.Now for my arguments:Fans want to see high-scoring games where people score constantly. An average basketball game is about 105-95 [1]. An average hockey game is 2-1 or 3-1, which isn't as fun to see. You tell me which sport you like better now. All of your arguments were that it was better for the players, but we are talking about better for the fans.[1] http://espn.go.com... |
10 | a141ac32-2019-04-18T12:34:26Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1. Round two ArgumentsOutlineI. Vaccines save more lives than they cost and risk assessmentA. Vaccines save livesB. Vaccines cost livesC. Net of saving livesII. Religious objections should not be toleratedIII. Moral objections are noted, but consquensim and EskimosIV. Conspiracy theories are weakV. ConclusionsVI. SourcesI will be arguing that Compulsory vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious, moral, or conspiracy theory objection.I. Vaccines save more lives than they cost and risk assessmentVaccines both save and cost humans lives. I will not misrepresent and present only one side, this would be cherry picking. A. Vaccines save livesThere are many scholarly peer reviewed articles showing the benefits of vaccines and other reliable sources."Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [0]B. Vaccines cost livesBetween adverse reactions, bad batches of vaccine, the pathogen is still alive and infects the patient, and medical errors. A good example of a medical error is the doctor and patient fail to communicate, and thus the patient is temporarily at risk due to other medical procedures. Yet, due to miscommunication the patient is given the vaccine treatment anyways. Vaccines occasionally kill the patient or cause harm. No treatment is 100% safe."Problems that could happen after any vaccine:Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination.As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a serious injury or death.Older children, adolescents, and adults might also experience these problems after any vaccine: People sometimes faint after a medical procedure, including vaccination. Sitting or lying down for about 15 minutes can help prevent fainting, and injuries caused by a fall. Tell your doctor if you feel dizzy, or have vision changes or ringing in the ears. Some people get severe pain in the shoulder and have difficulty moving the arm where a shot was given. This happens very rarely." [1]Vaccines kill their patient less than one in a million . That's less than 1/1,000,000. C. Net of saving livesUnless, you believe in a major conspiracy theory there is very little doubt that vaccines save much more lives than they cost. Think of the lottery, most of the time people just squander their money. Yet, somebody must win eventually. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. Well, vaccines are like the lottery in reverse. Most of the time the benefits are helpful. Yet, someone always loses. We all take risks, driving or riding in a car. Mass transportation has its own risks. Walking and bicycling can be more risky. Then, there is random events, both man-made and non-man made. Tornadoes, hurricanes, crimes, and just plain old being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Life is full of risk, there is no way to avoid all risk."CONCLUSIONS:Patients and health care providers can be reassured that vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event. Nevertheless, providers should be prepared to provide immediate medical treatment should it occur." [2]"CONCLUSION:Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization." [3]"Known side effectsAdverse reactions to the HPV vaccine Ceravix, reported between April 2008 and 23 September 2009. Very few, and fairly mild.To put it simply: complications are more likely to arise from illness than from vaccination.What this means is that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, by far, in every case. " [4]II. Religious objections should not be toleratedThere is no logical reason to believe God exists. Religion has done a lot of harm lately. We see this mostly in the form of religious terrorists attacks, many of which are not Muslim based. Yet, being against vaccines has caused much harm in the world in a quiet more predicable way. "But some mullahs in Bengal spread the rumor that the vaccine led to impotence and diarrhea (a bad combo) and urged mothers to keep their children away from the nurses and physicians" [5]Don't vaccinate be like Afghanistan.III. Moral objections are noted, but consequentialism, senilicide, and EskimosI can understand some people having moral objections. Yet, if we look at native American Indian Eskimos we see an odd connection. That some Eskimos tribes leave their old in the snowy waste lands to die. That there is simply not enough resources to support the old. This action gives the young, healthy, and fertile a better chance at surviving and reproducing. Yes, animals are experimented on in vaccine research and people will die from vaccine medical treatments. Yet, this doesn't mean we should abandon reason and practically in the name of unrealistic ideologies. In an utopia society we would have a way to research vaccines without causing suffering to animals. That nobody would die from vaccine treatments. Yet, we have to face reality. More people will die if we reject vaccines.As for loss of freedom, how about the people's freedom who don't want to be infected? How about those too young, weak, or old to be vaccinated? The immunocompromised and people with contraindications to vaccines shouldn't be vaccinated, and thus are at risk. As I see the freedom dilemma is that your freedom ends at the other person's nose. My argument is that by not vaccinating you are infringing upon the people's around you freedom. IV. Conspiracy theories are weakConspiracy theories are weak and the supporting evidence for the theories have been disproven repeatably. The real conspirators are the quacks that promote the anti-vaccine movement for financial gain. Exploiting people's fears for profit is immoral. Furthermore, autism is caused by air pollution from car exhaust. V. Enforcement As for enforcement of mandatory vaccines, I assume reasonable measures are taken. Starting with a phone call from the doctor and a letter from local law enforcement. A reasonable grace period is granted if the non-compliant citizen responds to the phone call and letter. After the grace period or a brief time if there is no answer the law breaker is fine a reasonable fine, $100 a day per vaccine missed. This should be reasonable economic pressure on the non-compliant to comply with the law. VI. ConclusionsThere can only be one conclusion. That vaccines should be compulsory the benefits far outweigh the negative. The risk of complications from illness is greater than the risk from vaccines. The only reason the anti-vaccine movement is alive today is due to the depths of deception quacks and political machines like infowars will sink to. The deaths of children from non-vaccination is proof that some people will mislead and misinform the public at any cost. VII. Sources0. http://www.usatoday.com...1. https://www.cdc.gov...2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://rationalwiki.org...5. http://www.slate.com... |
3 | 42b2be2d-2019-04-18T18:21:23Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | 9/11 was not a inside job I applaud my OPP unwavering argumentation. That being said he has failed to prove that 9/11 was a inside job. My OPP stated that the Bush Admin knew about, let it happen, or did it 9/11 commission was just used for biased ends. That is his theory it is not factual. If the Bush Admin is guilty of anything it is lying to cover up its own mistakes but that does not prove an inside job.Defying countless official and non-governmental enquiries, media reporting, and often common sense, a significant number of people fervently disbelieve that Osama bin Ladens al Qaeda sent 19 hijackers to execute the 9/11 massacre. Instead my OPP blames elements within George W. Bushs administration or that the US government didn't actually blow up its citizens, but knew full well the attacks were coming, then did nothing to stop them. Which is false. Even a decade later, the conspiracy movement is alive and kicking. Groups such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth see themselves as serious researchers exposing perhaps the biggest cover up in US history. A summary of the leading theories is contained in "Loose Change," a homemade documentary viewed nearly 125 million times on Google and some 30 million worldwide on You Tube according to director Dylan Avery.Splicing news footage and interviews, all set to a fast paced beat, Loose Change collates and expands on all the urban legends about 9/11. For example: - The Twin Towers could not have collapsed from airplane impact alone. - The astonishingly rapid collapse of World Trade Center tower 7, despite not being hit by a plane, bore the hallmarks of professional demolition. - Wall Street trading on stocks directly affected by the disaster showed some people knew in advance about what was coming. - A US missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, smashed into the Pentagon. - United Airlines Flight 93 did not crash in a Pennsylvania field, but vanished, perhaps after being shot down by a fighter jet. The United States has long been fertile ground for conspiracy theories. In this parallel world, JFK was assassinated by anyone ranging from the CIA to Cuban exiles. The Moon landing pictures were taken in a studio, while the US government is covering up evidence of UFOs. And American GIs are still held in bamboo cages in Vietnam. Some of them turn about to be true, after all Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy and Nixons Watergate break in was a cover-up. But with so few that turn out to be true, why do people believe in conspiracies? A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out. Michael Shermer outlines in his Skeptic column four traits of those who believe: * patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise * agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agent * confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory evidence for what we already believe * hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened. A conspiracy theory takes flight when all of these are concocted into a heady mix of conviction. Its called "conspiratorial cognition," and its the fuel driving belief in the 9/11 conspiracy.Anyway my point is that as I stated before conspiracy theories are just that theories. If there was any proof that would that 9/11 was a inside job it would known by now.In conclusion I have shown that there are explanations to the arguments my OPP has put forth. My OPP has not shown any factual evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job and that is what debate was about. His arguments are based on theory alone.It's vitally important to remember conspiracy theories are just that theories. There is no evidence to prove that they are true. I urge a PRO vote simply because there are no facts that prove a inside job on 9/11 if there were any they would surely be known by now. Any questions can be answered below:http://www.debunking911.com...Once again thx to my OPP and thx to our audience for taking time to review out arguments. |
22 | 94372cd1-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | laptopbatterij Asus a32-n56 Nouvel ordinateur portable de 14 pouces, l'Asus R455LJ-WX257T s'affiche actuellement en vente flash pour 649 euros et tourne sous Windows 10. Destiné à un usage polyvalent courant, il bénéficie d'une bonne quantité de mémoire vive, d'un processeur basse consommation Broadwell Core i5, d'un disque dur de capacité conséquente ou encore une carte graphique dédiée NVIDIA d'entrée de gamme. Avec sa coque foncée et son intérieur argent clair, il arbore une allure relativement élégante laptopbatterij Asus a32-k53 . http://www.accuprofessioneel.com...; Il intège la technologie Instant On qui assure une sortie de veille en 2 secondes ainsi que d'IceCool qui maintient les températures du repose-poignets à un niveau raisonnable. L'Asus R455LJ-WX257T est un ordinateur portable relativement compact conçu pour une utilisation polyvalente courante. Il délivre de bonnes performances générales grâce à son processeur Core i5-5200U basse consommation Broadwell et ses 8 Go de mémoire vive très utiles en multitâches. En outre, il est en mesure de faire tourner des jeux peu gourmands en ressources graphiques grâce à sa carte dédiée GeForce 920M. Positionnée sur l'entrée de gamme, cette dernière permet aussi évidemment de visionner des vidéos et photos. L'écran adopte d'ailleurs des caractéristiques classiques pour un 15 pouces et de ce fait un format 16/9ème bien adapté à la lecture de vidéos avec un traitement brillant qui fait ressortir les couleurs et se révèle sujet aux reflets sans oublier une définition de 1366x768 laptopbatterij Asus a32-k72 . Le stockage lui est confié à un disque dur de 1000 Go. Ceux qui souhaitent profiter d'une capacité importante seront donc comblés. Quant à la connectique intégrée à cet ordinateur, elle est bonne. Elle comprend des ports Ethernet et audio, des modules sans-fil Wi-Fi n et Bluetooth 4.0 pour des connexions et communications à distance sans-fil, des sorties vidéo VGA et HDMI pratiques pour brancher facilement ce PC à un moniteur ou une TV par exemple ou encore 3 USB tous compatibles à la fois USB 2.0 et USB 3.0, l'USB 3.0 garantissant des transferts s'effectuant plus vite qu'en USB 2.0 si un périphérique USB 3.0 est branché dessus. L'Asus R455LJ-WX257T s'affiche actuellement en vente flash pour 649 euros chez la Fnac (prix adhérents, tarif classique 699 euros) et se positionne comme l'un des seuls modèles de sa catégorie à bénéficier d'une quantité de mémoire vive aussi importante sur notre comparateur de prix. Il arbore un design à la fois original et gamer avec sa finition noir à touches de rouge laptopbatterij Asus a32-n55 . L'Asus FX550VX-DM174D est un ordinateur portable de 15 pouces destiné à une utilisation polyvalente. Il tourne sous FreeDOS. Or si l'on souhaite exploiter pleinement ses capacités, il est vivement conseillé d'installer à la place un système complet comme une distribution Linux ou Windows. On pourra ainsi par exemple profiter de la technologie NVIDIA Optimus qui en fonction des besoins bascule automatiquement et en temps réel entre les deux solutions graphiques intégrées, à savoir l'Intel HD 530 intégrée au processeur et la carte dédiée GeForce GTX 950M. Malgré ses prestations modestes, l'Intel HD 530 est privilégiée au maximum par Optimus car elle est peu énergivore et favorise donc l'autonomie par rapport à la GTX 950M plus gourmande et puissante. En pratique, la GeForce GTX 950M est capable de faire tourner de nombreux jeux du moment que l'on procède à des réglages sous les opus exigeants en ressources graphiques afin d'obtenir une bonne fluidité. Bien sûr, que ce soit avec l'Intel HD 530 intégrée ou la GeForce GTX 950M, laptopbatterij Asus a32-n56 il est possible de visionner des photos et vidéos sur ce portable. L'écran adopte justement un format 16/9ème se prêtant bien à cet usage tout comme sa résolution Full HD supérieure au standard 1366x768 et idéale pour afficher des contenus Haute Définition. Traité antireflet, l'écran se révèle plus lisible en environnement lumineux qu'une dalle brillante. Côté connectique, cet ordinateur est bien pourvu avec ses ports audio et Ethernet,ses modules sans-fil Wi-Fi ac (compatible Wi-Fi n mais plus performant) et Bluetooth 4.0 pour des connexions et communications à distance, ses sorties vidéo VGA et HDMI pratiques pour le relier facilement à un moniteur ou une TV par exemple ainsi que ses 3 USB tous compatibles à la fois USB 2.0 et USB 3.0, les USB 3.0 garantissant que les transferts s'effectuent plus vite qu'en USB 2.0 si des périphériques USB 3.0 sont branchés dessus. Le stockage lui est confié à un disque dur véloce fonctionnant à 7200 tr/min contre 5400 tr/min habituellement dont la capacité importante de 1000 Go en comblera plus d'un laptopbatterij Asus A31-X200 . Quant au cœur de ce portable, il délivre une puissance globale à même de combler un maximum d'utilisateurs y compris en multitâches. Il se compose en effet de 8 Go de mémoire vive associés à un processeur Skylake Quad Core i5-6300HQ.Comparé à un modèle doté de 4 Go DDR3/4 et d'un processeur Dual Core, on obtient ainsi un fonctionnement bien plus rapide au quotidien, particulièrement sous les travaux exigeants en ressources RAM et CPU exploitant l'architecture multi-cœurs (ex : retouche photo, rendu 3D, montage vidéo). L'Asus FX550VX-DM174D est actuellement commercialisé pour moins de 700 euros par Cdiscount et se positionne parmi les modèles les plus abordables de sa catégorie sur notre comparateur de prix. |
19 | d9e8fdaa-2019-04-18T18:54:22Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage However, I do believe gay marriage should be legal, the majority DOES rule. Currently, the majority of the US population (assuming this is terms to gay marriage on US soil) is against gay marriage. Thus, I am going con to support the majority of the Americans. I await your contentions for round two. |
22 | de2d2345-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israel Is Wrong Accepted. Note to Pro that the resolution of Israel being "wrong" is subjective and lacking in additional explanation. Pro then contradicts the resolution by asserting that Israel has the "right" to defend itself and therefore undermines much of their argument. I'll highlight once more that the term "wrong", if not supported with context, is entirely subjective in meaning. Pro may see Israel as wrong but so far they have offered no citations or proven facts to substantiate this claim. Because of this ambiguous definition--which could apply to a number of things--I'll outline my own reasons with supported facts on why Israel is not wrong to defend itself or protect its civilian population, following by rebuttals. History of ConflictThe history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is indeed expansive and dates back exactly to the 1900's, almost fifty years before Israel was even established. During this period a selection of small Arab terrorist groups began to form with the stated intent of attacking and killing Jews within Palestine, many of which has been settled in the land for a considerably long time. The first significant attack that took place during the Jewish Passover in Jerusalem, 1920, overall six Jews were killed and a number of 200 were injured. Jewish communities within the Galilee and near the Syria border were also targeted and attacked. The reason why these particular cases are relevant is because they were the first in the beginning of a long-standing conflict and most importantly: happened before any large-scale immigration or any establishment of settlements. Rather, the Arabs were rioting against existing members of the Jewish Palestinian community. Another example would be the Jaffa riots when 47 Jews were killed.As explained example of the Jaffa massacre can be found here: "Arabs of Jaffa murderously attacked Jewish inhabitants of the town and Arab raids were made on five Jewish rural settlements; the disorders were suppressed by the police and military forces. Forty-seven Jews were killed and 146 wounded, mostly by Arabs. The hostility shown towards the Jews during the riots was shared by Arabs of all classes; Muslim and Christian Arabs". Later on in 1929 there was the most famous example of the Arab initiated Hebron Massacre, in which 69 Jews were brutally killed and hundreds injured. Other attacks took place again in Jerusalem, Jaffa and the place of Safed. "Murderous attacks were made on the Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safed; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. (number displayed is in total) The individual behind organizing these attacks was not in fact anyone who had lost land or suffered from displacement, but rather an extremely wealthy Arab named Haj Amin al-Husseini who became the Mufti of Jerusalem and later affiliated himself with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. He was so enthused about gaining the assistance and support of Hitler that he in fact sent 15 drafts of declarations that he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the future of Jews in Palestine. One of which, asked the two countries to impose the illegality of a Jewish home in Palestine and further stated that "Arab countries have the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries". Not only is it requiring that Jews be removed from Palestine, but also that the same apply to all surrounding Arab lands with Jewish residence. Hitler stated that the Arabs and them (Germany) were "natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the Jews". In 1945 Yugoslavia attempted to indict the Mufti (note: the first Palestinian leader) because of his part in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers who contributed heavily to the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. However, he escaped from French detention and continued with fighting Jews in Egypt and Lebanon. Moving towards the establishment of Israel, the 1948 war also provides an example of a newly created state being attacked without any previous provocation. On the very first day of its existence, Israel was targeted by five Arab nations with far superior militaries, when they invaded Israeli territory. Once again Israel was not being launched war against because of settlements, displaced people or as you state in your own argument: Palestinian prisoners (naturally this was before any Palestinians Arabs could be imprisoned), rather it was directly because of a new state, one that was not wanted in the region by Arab countries or leaders, had been created. Two ceasefires were introduced during the conflict, both of which that were violated by Arab armies. Eventually in 1949 the war stopped and agreements on armistice lines were made with Egypt controlling the Gaza and Jordan Jerusalem and the West Bank. This was until Egypt cut off the Teran Straits in 1967, which if unprovoked, is both technically an "act of war" and what led to the six day conflict. Because of Jordanian and Syrian military attack and involvement new territories were gained by Israel, such as the Golan Heights and certain areas, namely those of religious significance, of Jerusalem were legitimately won. It should be highlighted that all wars that have occurred have been initiated by Arab states/groups and not Israel. Article 51 of the UN Charter in fact states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."Therefore, Israel is legally within rights to defend itself when attacked. Studying more modern cases such as the recent Gaza conflict Israel was also legally justified in retaliating against Hamas because they (Hamas) had made three armed attempts at attacking Israeli towns through underground tunnel infiltration. While rockets, missiles and mortar shells being fired into Israeli territory also played a part, the extensive tunnel network was in fact the main catalyst in Israel committing ground control with the purpose of destroying these tunnels. Within them were found an array of drugs, handcuffs and other kidnapping equipment, along with large supplies of weaponry. Despite being involved in a military conflict with Hamas, Israel also still proceeded to provide aid to Gaza and allowed over 2000 Palestinians to receive medical treatment in Israel. Israel also continued to supply Gaza with electricity despite the fact it was benefiting Hamas. As well as carrying out over 80 infrastructural repairs on electricity, water, communication, and other necessary equipment within Gaza. Israel agreed and adhered to all ceasefires made, Hamas either rejected or violated. Sources: [1.] http://www.camera.org...[2.] http://www.aish.com...[3.] http://history-of-israel.org...[4.] http://www.ushmm.org...[5.] http://www.mythsandfacts.org... [6.] http://www.nato.int... [7.] http://www.businessinsider.com...[8.] http://www.nytimes.com... |
29 | 59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Illegal Immigrants As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards. |
19 | 8d3589f8-2019-04-18T16:08:36Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Should gay marriage be legal It is unfortunate the my opponent forfeited so many rounds. |
24 | 1d8dbec9-2019-04-18T18:05:36Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Romney should be elected over Obama 1. We need a new President A prosperous economy is the basis for all else. The economy provides money for individuals to support themselves, for a social safety net, for infrastructure construction, and for national defense. Governor Romney summarized President Obama's performance: [Obama] said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. ... He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He'd get that done. He hasn't even made a proposal on either one. He said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn't even file it. ... He said that he'd cut in half the deficit. He hasn't done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It's gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented -- it's already been passed -- if it's implemented fully, it'll be another $2,500 on top. The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, "Look, I've created 5 million jobs." That's after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty. ... When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It's growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before. The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he's put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have. [1. http://tinyurl.com...] The Stimulus was promised to go towards building infrastructure, but "only 8% of the total, went to roads, public transport, rail, bridges, aviation and wastewater systems." [2. http://www.economist.com...] The Administration did not understand the basics of the government procurement cycle of proposal, specification, bid, award, and funding, Obama admitted the shovel-ready jobs did not exist. [3. http://tinyurl.com...] President Clinton, in a candid moment, declared: "I've heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I've heard from Obama," ... "I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever. Obama doesn't know how to be president. He doesn't know how the world works. He's incompetent. He's an amateur!" [4. http://tinyurl.com...] 2. Romney has the skills to be President, Obama the skills to run for officeNo one becomes President of the United States without some very strong skills. Governor Romney's skills are in business and administration. Business skills relate to understanding the capitalist system and that is what is required for jobs and prosperity. Administrative skills are derived from Romney's experience as a business executive and as a governor in a state with a legislature under 85% Democrat control. By contrast, Obama's skills are in the art of politics, and derive from his experience as a community organizer. The job of a community organizer is to get benefits from government to please a limited constituency. Community organizers do not worry about how they are paid for. On a national level, Obama divides the electorate into groups and promises each some benefit. There are not enough rich people to pay for what is promised, but he supposes there are.Competence is measured objectively in terms of success. Romney ran Bain Capital and built an extraordinary record of success. Bain's business was mainly making failed ventures successful, and Bain had 70% success rate. In each case of Bain investment, the alternative was to let a company fail, losing all the jobs and nearly all the wealth. As Governor of Massachusetts, he worked successfully with an 85% Democrat legislative opposition. He met with Democrats weekly, and received high marks from his opponents. Romney turned around the 2002 Olympics, which had been struggling with scandals and financial problems. Free enterprise versus BureaucracyRomeycare is sometimes claimed to be like Obamacare, but the differences are dramatic. Massachusetts is a relatively rich state, and had only 4% of the population uninsured. Romneycare was limited to helping that 4%. The legislation was 75 pages and it's worked fine in Massachusetts precisely because it did not revolutionize the system. Obamacare starts with 2700 pages of legislation setting up 159 new agencies and boards [5. http://tinyurl.com...] and imposing 23 new taxes. Compliance with the tax rules alone is estimated by the IRS to take taxpayers 80 million hours. [6. http://tinyurl.com...] There is a fundamental difference in ideology. Romney used a minimum amount of government to provide a social safety net. Obama believes that government should determine the details of how society functions, and then impose that will through elaborate rules administered by a bureaucracy. The Environmental Protection Agency last year imposed rules on utilities that will ultimately cost consumers $7 trillion. Congress didn't vote on it, and it won't appear on anyone's tax bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act has new rules that require elevators in swimming pools, among a catalog of obscure and expensive regulations. A highly-trained professional is required to determine compliance. The total regulatory costs are now estimated at an astounding $1.8 trillion per year. [7. http://tinyurl.com...] These are not taxes or the cost of any service, but the costs born solely to ensure compliance. By comparison, the IRS collects about $2.3 trillion in taxes each year. A crippling burden is put on the economy without any explicit taxes.3. Leading from Behind in Foreign Affairs U.S. status has plunged under Obama, damaging the country's ability to lead and to peacefully resolve disputes. The policy of deliberately diminishing U.S. status was dubbed "leading from behind" by an Obama aide. President Obama's apology tour raised expectations in the Arab world, but recently a Zogby poll showed, "Arab approval of the United States in the Middle East has plummeted so drastically that it now is lower than it was during the presidency of George W. Bush, according to a startling new survey." [8.http://tinyurl.com...] A worldwide poll also shows the drop in US standing, "The overall rankings, based on the percentage of people who said the country or countries had a positive effect, in descending order were: Japan, Germany, Canada, Britain, China, France, the European Union, the United States, Brazil, India, South Africa, South Korea, Russia, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran." [9. http://tinyurl.com... ] The diminished status an Obama choice. But underlying that style [of leading from behind], assures this Obama adviser, there really are ideas. Indeed, "two unspoken beliefs," explains Lizza. "That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world." Amazing. This is why Obama is deliberately diminishing American presence, standing, and leadership in the world? [10. http://tinyurl.com... ] The education system is failing as well. "The United States has fallen to "average" in international education rankings released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ..." [11. http://tinyurl.com... ] --- The country needs competence and freedom from government. It's Romney. |
9 | a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should wear school uniform. We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire. |
15 | aefcf694-2019-04-18T17:34:55Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. CON: Intro: Ever since the 17th century, we have been testing products on animals to make sure that they are safe for human use. Animal testing aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible only through animal testing. This includes treatments for HIV"S, Cancer, insulin, antibiotics, and many more. Animal testing has proved itself to work and has saved many human lives already. Scientists use animal testing for one main reason. That is because animals are similar to humans and most cosmetics have the same effect on humans. Because we believe that animal testing is not only great but it is essential to advancing in society, we negate the resolution which states: RESOLVED: The US federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals. CON FRAMEWORK: In this debate, the pro has the burden of proving that ALL animal testing should be banned and that nothing good comes out of it. On the other hand, the con has the privilege of demonstrating that animal testing benefits the humanity and the pros to animal testing outweigh the cons. CONTENTION 1: THE BENEFITS OF ANIMAL TESTING http://www.worldometers.info... According to the University of Oxford, Approximately 3 million human beings are killed each year by general cancer. Leukemia, malaria, and lung cancer are the main contributing factors to another 4 million human deaths. Currently, there are approximately 2.1 million children living with HIV"S in this country alone and over 1,300 deaths from HIV"S a day. Due to animal testing, these numbers are dropping as we speak by at least 70 percent. So what you have to see is that because of animal testing, the human life is being preserved. 6.3 percent of the U.S population suffers from either type 1 or 2 diabetes, that humans aren"t the only ones suffering. Every breed of dogs, cats and other animals also have been diagnosed with diabetes. It is through testing on different breeds of animals that we have been able to come up with a temporary cure for this chronic disease. CONTENTION 2: ALTERNATIVES WON"T PROVIDE ACCURATE RESULTS In order for medical advancements to be made, we need to continue to use animals in testing. Where animals are used in research projects, they are used for a wide range of scientific techniques. Animals are used only for parts of research where there are no other techniques are available and can deliver the same answer. You cannot copy a human on a computer and get the same results. A beating heart or a pulse is irreplaceable and complex. While we already know a lot about how it works, there is an enormous spectrum we have yet to discover. A computer hasn"t been invented that has the power to reproduce all the complexities of a human body which cannot be created in a test tube. While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup that you could not control in human subjects. What we are basically saying in this contention is that even though there are alternatives, they won"t produce the same results that a real patient would. CONTENTION 3: THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE USE OF MEDICAL TESTING ON ANIMALS SO LONG AS THERE ARE REASONABLE LIMITS Simon Festing [Executive Director of the Research Defense Society, London] and Robin Wilkinson [Science Communications Officer at the Research Defense Society, London], "The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research," EMBO Reports, Volume 8(6), pp. 526-530. URL= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006), we now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards animal research. Although society views animal research as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a high proportion"84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005"is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory system, people chose those that"unknown to them"are already part of the UK legislation. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it. What this means is that the public is fine with animal testing. A minimum of 84 % support it as long as we consider alternatives and that it is completely necessary. I love debating and look forward to their response. |
11 | 59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org... |
Subsets and Splits