query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
11 | 8a2c0d8d-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | FDR was not a great president. Con Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote |
12 | 8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | teens should beallowed to get birth control Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills? |
39 | 5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased |
12 | 8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00001-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Schools give out free birth control pills I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends. |
39 | e1beae30-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial ForfeitUnfortunately Pro has forfeited every round of this debate. This merits a loss of conduct points, but I will leave that at the discretion of the voters. At this point, I will offer my own case which will go unrefuted. Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be economically beneficial The definitions, to my knowledge, are self-explanatory, so I don't feel a need to clarify any at this point. I'll jump right into my argument. Note: I had several images, but kept receiving error messages when I tried to submit. So I'm going to instead link to the images.I. Adjusting for Sticky WagesAs we all know, economic gains are not broadly shared; over the past thirty years, the bulk of economic gains have gone to the very affluent. In spite of the fact that productivity has doubled, median wages have flatlined for many and fallen for some. Who has been the most hurt by this? Minimum wage workers; the minimum has not been and is not indexed to inflation, meaning that nominal wages do not rise with inflation. Even though the nominal minimum wage has increased over time, real wages nevertheless decline, meaning falling purchasing power. Let's examine this in several graphs. The first graph comes from a piece Robert Reich wrote in the NYT (1). http://www.debate.org...Initially, this looks like a rather confusing graphic, so allow me to briefly elucidate it for you. From 1947 to 1979, productivity increased by 119%. As a result, hourly compensation increased by 100% and hour wages increased by 72%. This looked, overall, pretty fair: generally speaking, pay rose proportionally with productivity. This hasn't been the case recently, however. From 1979 to 2009, productivity increased by 80%, whilst average hourly compensation only increased by 8% and average hourly wages only increased by 8%. How have wages practically been flat, though, if productivity has increased? As the opponents of a minimum wage increase often argue, people are "paid what they are worth." That, of course, is an utter crock. I'm going to provide a few more graphics proving this point soon, but there's more to see. Observe next the change in income distrubtion to households by income groups. This comes from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (2). Note the same occurence: rising shares of income for those at the very top, and flat or falling shares of income for those struggling to make it. http://www.debate.org...We should view this in context, though. What has happened to incomes of the top 1 percent over this time period? Let's review this following graph (3). http://www.debate.org...To make a long story short, the top 1 percent has done exceedingly well, with income gains surpassing productivity gains. To provide more context, consider this: in 1980, CEO's earned 42 times what the average worker made, but in 2012, they earned 380 times (4). Opponents of a minimum wage increase will argue that workers are merely paid "what they are worth," which is rooted in their productivity. However, if the minimum wage kept pace with productivity, it will be about $21.72 (5). If it even kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.52 (5). We can observe this disparity with an analysis put together by Pew of nominal versus real values of the minimum wage (6). Notice that the real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and hasn't been higher since. http://www.debate.org...II. ProductivitySo we now know, judging from empirical data, that the notion that people are paid in accordance with their equilibrium wage or their marginal product of labor if a canard: it simply hasn't happened, which is largely because the entire concept is entirely theoretical and arbitrary. That is, if I'm an employer, I can artificially increase your productivity by making sure that you have access to the best machinery. I could also artificially lower your productivity (this is obviously hypothetical) by breaking your leg. Does this mean I should alter your pay? Of course not, nor would I. This isn't to say that productivity and compensation are entirely incompatible, as there is some merit to the argument that pay, generally speaking, does or should increase with productivity. It simply hasn't happened as recent, and thus having a minimum wage acts a counterweight against lack of bargaining leverage in the workplace. The point of this contention, though, is that raising the minimum wage can actually increase worker's productivity. Wayne Cascio from the Harvard Business Review explains: "In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry...Costco's stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco's approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom." (7) We also have a statement from over 1,000 business owners expressing their support for increasing the federal minimum wage: "[H]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation" (8). These statements are consistent with empirical work conducted by U.C. Berkeley economists which revealed that an increase in the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has "no measurable effect on employment" (9). It also demonstrated how businesses react to the increase in labor costs. Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times explains: "Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found." (9) III. Outsourcing? Another canard we often hear about the minimum wage is that it will lead to "outsourcing." Not only is this claim unsound logically, as it insinuates that labor costs are the be-all-end-all and the sole determinant of employment opportunities. If that were the case, why wouldn't businesses relocate to -- I know libertarians are going to cry "strawman!" but I promise you, if you look at the data, this is a relevant example -- Somalia? You could pay workers whatever you'd like if there aren't any regulations. Why don't businesses do this? There are a few reasons. First, minimum wage jobs are most often in the restaurant or service sector such as retail -- about 60%, in fact, as Paul Krugman notes (10). Obviously service sector jobs cannot be readily exported, so on this front, the claim falls flat. Literally relocating businesses to X country with lower labor costs would cost businesses even more money than increasing the minimum wage, and would exacerbate the next problem I'm about to point out. The second problem with the outsourcing canard is that one businesses's employees are another's businesses -- or, even that same business's -- customers. Low-wage workers have a higher marginal propensity to consumer than more affluent people, meaning they consume with about 100% of their income. Therefore, any increase in the minimum wage will merely result in those dollars going back into the economy. As people spend more money, the AD curve shifts to the left. Businesses would want to supply more, and now can because their profits have increased, meaning we would see a shift along the AS curve as well as an increase in the demand for labor. This is the reason that AD, not AS, is the key to the economy -- and I am not only saying that because John Maynard Keynes happens to be the economist after which I have modelled my username. Businesses are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash right now that they aren't investing. It's intellectually dishonst to insinuate that merely reducing their taxes, deregulating them further, abolishing the minimum wage, etc. would provide an economic boost. They aren't going to increase their supply, and thus hire more workers, if there isn't any demand for their products their selling. That, my conservative friends, is called a glut. Rising inventory costs are literally toxic to businesses, and should be avoided when they can. This acts as a check by ensuring that businesses have an active, vibrant customer base. IIII. Jobs I've already essentially proven this case, but with the few remaining characters I have, I'll address this as well. There have been several meta-studies conducted on this subject, and the conclusion far and wide has been that raising the minimum wage has "no discernable effect" on employment (11). Let's go to John Scmitt from the CEPR: "[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers." (11)Even the CBO study that conservatives often cite -- falsely, might I add -- grants that a hike in the minimum wage provides an economic stimulus: "The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO's estimate."ConclusionThere isn't much else to say. Vote Con. Sources(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com...(7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com... |
44 | 902accb5-2019-04-18T14:36:21Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | does god exist 1. Theological Non-CognitivismPrefaceThis is an epistemological argument against God's existence. In other words, I shall neither use ontology or metaphysics to affirm the position I take here – it shall be that the term "God" doesn't refer to a coherent concept, thus attributing existence to it is incoherent. First, I must clarify what "theological non-cognitivism" is. Theological non-cognitivism posits that "words such as 'God' ... are not cognitively meaningful." [1] So I'll be defending the meaninglessness of the term "God", and, in the process, affirm that the existence of such an incoherent concept is impossible. The argument is formalised: P1. If God lacks a positively defined attribute, then secondary & relational attributes cannot be justifiedP2. God lacks a positively defined attributeC. Secondary & relational attributes of God are meaningless, thus God, by definition, is meaningless Defense of Premise 1For meaningfulness of a term of an entity, then its relational attributes must be defined as contingent on a positive attribute. For instance, let us consider an entity x. A relational attribute of x is that it weighs one pound. If a person asks "what is x?", an answer of "x is 1 lb" only describes a relational attribute of x, thus can't affirm what x actually is, since a positive attribute isn't shown. If y is a concept without any such positive attribute, then the concept y is meaningless. We can only reasonably talk of the existence of an entity if the entity has positive attributes in addition to relational attributes or secondary attributes, since if an entity's sole attribute is "1 lb", then the entity can't exist since "1 lb" is a secondary attribute that is used to describe the being, rather than define it. Defense of Premise 2Let us consider the attributes of the term "God" as defined in this debate – intelligence, supernatural power, transcendence, intelligence, creating & ruling the universe. Let's analyse the attributes individually, and I shall show you that the attributes are all secondary or relational attributes. "Intelligence" is defined as "the ability to acquire knowledge and skills". Now, let's try applying a property of intelligence to an entity x, which someone is asking to define. "X is defined as intelligent" is incoherent if intelligence is the sole attribute the entity has (in addition to, perhaps, other secondary & relational attributes). The same can be applied to any entity, thus intelligence isn't enough. Similarly, "greatness", "power", "creation & rule of the universe", and "transcendence" all fail, even together, to define x as a coherent entity. "Intelligence" and "power" are also relational attributes, i.e. require a standard to be coherent. For example, something can't be considered "powerful" unless we have a standard or objective criterion to coherently define "powerful", or "intelligent". Since God is transcendent, he is outside the universe – thus a standard external to God is lacked. A standard internal to God is question begging. ConclusionThus, the two premises entail that the concept of God is intrinsically meaningless as it has only relational & secondary attributes, and no primary or positive attributes. 2. Ontological Parsimony"Ontological parsimony" is basically an ontological form of simplicity. According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (1) P is ontologically simpler than Q if and only if proposition P posits less assumptions than proposition Q, and (2) if P is ontologically simpler than Q, then P is a priori more likely to be true.[2] Definition – A is proposition of theism, B is proposition of weak atheismP1. If A simpler than B, A is more likely, and if B is simpler than A, then B is more likelyP2. B is simpler than A, and negation that A is simpler is falseC. Weak atheism is a priori more likely than theism P1 is true via. ontological parsimony, leaving P2 to be justified. Theism posits three assumptions – God, the universe, and natural laws; atheism posits two – the universe and natural laws. As such, atheism is ontologically simpler than theism. The conclusion entails. == Rebuttals == R1. Ontological ArgumentModal Ontological ArgumentPro first presents W.L. Craig's formulation of Alvin Plantinga's "victorious" ontological argument, that uses modal logic.[3] Basically, the argument is that if it's possible that God exists, then God exists. Reductio – A. <>P --> []P (assumption)P1. It is possible that God does not existP2. If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not existC1. God does not existP3. It is possible that God existsP4. If it is possible for God to exist, then God existsC2. God existsP5. C1 and C2 contradict, and rest on AP6. Premises are sound from AC3. A is false The same justification given by Pro to the MOA works on the reverse MOA equally well. Anselm Ontological ArgumentPro then presents Saint Anselm's ontological argument, as formalised: P1. God is the maximally great beingP2. It would be greater if God exist then not existC. God exists, since he should be as great as conceivable P2 is falsified by Kant's famous objection that existence is not a predicate.[4] Additionally, Pro provides no justification for P2. The property of "greatness" is subjective, as such cannot be exemplified by the objective term "existence". R2. Cosmological ArgumentKalam Cosmological ArgumentPro first presents Craig's kalam cosmological argument.[5] Pro justifies P1 via. the Conservation of Mass. That is a physical objection. But any physical assertion assumes the principle of the "uniformity of nature", i.e. that the laws of physics apply. The Conservation of Mass doesn't apply to the universe, since the uniformity of nature only applies within the bounds of space-time, so sans time directionality & physical constraint, such a principle doesn't apply, so P1 isn't necessary. This, thus, commits a sweeping generalisation fallacy.[6] The second premise has to assume a presentism ontology of time, and the B-theory of time, as Craig himself admits.[5] But presentism has been falsified by special relativity via. relativity of simultaneity, which posits that each observer has a separate plane of simultaneity – this entails four-dimensionalism and eternalism.[7] Second Cosmological ArgumentPro then continues a cosmological argument after presenting his teleological argument, that I shall address here. For the universe to coherently have a "beginning in time", a presentism ontology of time is assumed. Under eternalism, time has no beginning – past, present, and future are all equally real – so a past-finite universe only "begins" as much as a ruler begins with its first inch. R3. Teleological ArgumentFirst, this argument doesn't argue for God as defined. It only, at most, would affirm an "ordering intellect", not necessarily one that rules the universe, and has all attributes as held. Secondly, Pro equates between prescriptive and descriptive telos – Pro needs to prove the former, since telos as Pro posits is subjective & relative. References1. http://goo.gl...2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...4. http://goo.gl...5. http://goo.gl...6. http://goo.gl...7. Roger Penrose. The Emperor's New Mind, pp. 392-393. |
19 | 6334f2a3-2019-04-18T15:41:57Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Thank You for the welcome! First off, the use of religious Text cannot be used, even though im a Christian, i dont derive my argument from here. Although I support Civil Unions (making it constitutionally legal, and fair for everyone, since its endorsed by all Governmential and Political institution), However Marriage has traditionally been an Religious practice, and Homosexual marriage underminds all major religions (i am not using text, i am using historical facts). underminding a once Holy and very special practice is very offencive. Marriage between a man and a woman is as natural as the wind. And according to Science, the purpose of life, mandatory to the continuation of an species is to "Be born, grow, reproduce, and die", if you cut off born, well, youre never born, thus dont exist; grow, you cant grow enough to gather food or to make food, and are most likely eaten or killed; reproduce (my point) to continue your species, this, according to science, is critical. And Die, if we didnt die, we would be Gods. I will leave some views open for you to introduce, on round three we will argue against the points we have given, dont argue agaisnt my points until round 3... only introduce 2 more. Good Luck :) |
3 | bc5602ad-2019-04-18T17:27:41Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Bimetalism is better than Fiat Money It is better for a society to use a Bimetallism monetary system, rather than a Fiat monetary system. In a Bimetallism system, there is a finite amount of money. Money is the resource for trade. The amount of a resource regulates the use of said resource. The amount of money in existence will regulate the amount of trade. Having a finite amount of money will create a closed system. In a closed system the elements of that system will self-regulate to make the most efficient use of resources. In Bimetallism the amount and speed of trading will be self-regulating. The amount and speed of trading dictate the size and speed of a population's growth. Bimetallism will allow a society to self-regulate its growth to its most efficient size. This would be good for a society. A Fiat monetary system allows money to be created. Allowing money to be created creates an open system. An open system allows an outside force to affect the elements inside it. Allowing an outside force to affect a system removes the systems ability to self-regulate itself. When a system cannot self-regulate it is at the mercy of the outside force that can affect it. A Fiat monetary system would cause the society using it to be at the mercy of the outside force that could create and destroy money in order to manipulate it. This would be bad for a society. |
13 | 6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00002-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short. |
24 | 155384a5-2019-04-18T19:28:23Z-00000-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Nationalizing health care in the U.S. would increase its cost 1. The resolution we are debating is "Nationalizing health care in the U.S. would increase its cost." Con seems to agree, saying, "Since most people in the U.S. obtain private insurance over Medicaid, even if costs were to increase by nationalizing health care, thus making the government have to pay more, it would actually be DECREASING the cost for those who are privately insured." Con is confusing what the costs are with who pays for the costs. She concedes that costs rise, but says its no problem because the government can always raise taxes to pay whatever it costs. Con endorses the illusion that if the government pays, it really doesn't cost anything. This untrue, it costs more. Con argues that polls show that people like to get "free" stuff from the government, in keeping with the illusion that free stuff from the government really is free. I don't doubt that is what people say. 2. I claimed that one reason that Medicare administrative costs are lower is that they do not examine claims for mistakes and fraud. Con counters that they do examine claims. I grant that Medicare has stepped up attempts to detect fraud, compared to a few years ago when they did nothing. The results have been ineffective, and is mainly harassment about conformance with the Medicare flat rate rules. Medicare fraud is rampant [1]. "More than one-fourth (26%) of physicians who restrict services to Medicare patients do so because of "hassles and/or threats from Medicare.".." [2] 3. Con maintained that a single payer system can lower drug costs by refusing to pay even enough to cover manufacturing costs, let alone investment costs for drug R&D. She supposes that drug companies will continue to develop drugs at a loss. Con points to $80 billion in drug company profits, implying that drug companies will continue to invest if profits are substantial reduced or eliminated. The drug business is both highly competitive and highly profitable. Because of competition, half of drug company profits are reinvested in new drug development [3]. Drug companies also suffer enormous risks from lawsuits that could at any time cause investors to lose all their money. Nationalizing health care does not lower the investment costs nor reduce the lawsuit risks. They will not invest without reward. Price controls in Canada keep drug prices a mere 5% lower than the U.S., but Canadian drug companies consequently only invest half in R&D at half the rate of US companies [8]. The NIH budget of $28 billion includes only a small amount for drug development. The costly part of drug development are clinical trials, and NIH does very little of that. NIH licenses it's drug patents and gets a few tens of millions in royalties, basically nothing compared to the industry. 4. Con asserts that "If it weren't for for public health care, the cost of private insurance would be significantly higher." The government forces drug development costs and hospital overheads costs on to private insurers. Con claims that the government is free from competitive pressure, so they can pay only whatever they choose. So therefore they don't pay their fair share of drug costs, emergency rooms, and equipment. That will show up later when government takes over. "The American Hospital Association reported that its member facilities provided $21 billion in uncompensated health-care services last year." [10] "Moreover, the government can hire people to be innovative and lower costs however and whenever possible." Private enterprise has a profit motive for hiring and rewarding people for innovation and cost savings. Imagine an entrepreneur with a brilliant new idea in coat-saving medical technology. Will he ever say to himself, "I want to cash in on this, so I think I'll join the government bureaucracy, where innovation is really rewarded."? Con supposes that the next government bureaucracy will be completely different from every government bureaucracy that has ever existed in the past. This will never happen, because bureaucracy succeeds only by getting larger and controlling more things, not by efficiency. A gave explicit examples of competition driving down costs, with more competition driving down costs the most. Con never refuted any example, and offered no examples of government bureaucracies driving down costs. 5. Con argues, "The type of 'peer review' I have advocated for encourages doctors to be prudent stewards, and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from colleagues." The assertion is completely false, because as Con asserted, the government does not provide a limited pool of money that must be shared. The price reimbursed for an office visit does not increase if there are fewer office visits. Gaming the system is inherent in government attempts at price controls. It is a constant feature of government health care [5,6,7]. I argued that private insurers have a profit motive to use preventive care to drive down costs. This is unrefuted. 7. I argued that government health care will follow the pattern of other government agencies and boost the salaries of low-skilled workers. I understated the case. The recent stimulus package included a provision that all funded public works projects must pay full union wages, lowering the products delivered to the taxpayers by thirty to forty percent. This is done to curry favor with unions, who favor socialist-style elitism over competition. Con claims without a plausible reason that it won't happen in government-controlled health care. He is making another "the next bureaucracy will be magically efficient" argument. The precedent is to increase labor costs by 30 to 40 percent. [4] Pro argues for magical bureaucracy, claiming "In other words, if in a governmental bureaucracy the law-makers are those in most direct contact with customers (the public), than it is the law makers and politicians who will make it a priority to keep costs down. Reducing a lot of fluff Middle Management may be the way to go." So is this why the Post Office pays labor 30% above market, while FedEx and UPS pay slightly below market, and why as a result FedEx and UPS provide much better service? Con's theory is also not working in the Internal Revenue Service, the FAA, your local Motor Vehicle Bureau, and every other government service that one can name. The problem is that managers of private companies are held acutely responsible. If they don't perform they will ultimately be replaced, or their company will go under. Elected officials are elected mainly on generalities and on a handful of hot issues. Congress funded a study about what happens worldwide when nations nationalized their oil production. The production costs stay about the same, but production drops by two-thirds. That's about what we can expect from nationalized medicine. The cost per unit of delivered care will increase dramatically. Con has provided references that are mainly partisan opinions, without references to factual evidence such as government statistics, independent studies, or other data. R1 [1] establishes that people like getting free stuff from the government. True. In R1 [2] there is a CBO graph showing that Medicare reimbursement increases tend to track private insurance increases. True, but it doesn't deny they are underpaying. R1 [3] has no factual reference. I like R2 [1] although it's an argument, not a factual reference. It argues that government needs a vast bureaucracy not needed by private enterprise. That is true, and it is therefore a large unnecessary expense that will increase health care costs. R2[2,3] are blog opinions. Government will stifle competition, bloat bureaucratic administration, encourage fraud and gaming, and raise basic labor costs. The resolution is affirmed. |
16 | 86fca339-2019-04-18T18:03:35Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Legalization of Marijuana My Opponent's argument is not factually backed My opponent says things, and I quote like;"marijuana is wasting money and causing wars,"Now, this is a very broad statement and is not factually based by any source, statistic, or even website. Therefore, for lack of evidence, presumed false. Another quote, "prescription drugs kill about 100,000 people in the world each year," May be true, but not backed up. I now ask my opponent to show me his sources when he states statistics and makes broad statements. Rebuttal to my opponent's argument in Round 2My opponents argument is not factual scientifically at all, and has no sources to back any assumptions up in his first opening argument. My main argument to my opponent is the fact that they assume that it will only be used as a medical drug. You have to understand that once legalized, people will have more access to get the drug. Whether they need it for medical use or not, once legalized for medical purposes it will be released in to the public through the government. Now, another theory is the abused system it will bring. With marijuana now being able to be given out for "pain removing" there will be "pot-heads" that abuse the system to get the drug that they think their body needs. My opponent says that when marijuana is legalized we will stop "wasting money" but I ask my opponent, what are we wasting money on? And how would marijuana being legalized make us stop, "wasting money" It makes no sense, for my opponent does not go into any further detail. My opponent just states it and move on. Now, my opponent tries to argue how if smoked safely, marijuana is safe. How is marijuana smoked safely? Earlier in the paragraph my opponent says, "Besides, Marijuana affect would have you pass out before you could try to overdose," [on prescription drugs]Yes, passing out seems perfectly safe to me, especially if I'm doing something with a group of people at a party, and I pass out. Seems very "safe," And also, my opponent claims that legalizing Marijuana would "stop the deaths caused by overdose on prescription drugs because they would pass out before they could overdose. " So, my opponent is saying that you wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs because you would be passed out because of marijuana. So if I just walked up to someone, knocked them out with a baseball bat, they wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs, simply because they are "passed out," The idea is ridiculous to assume because my opponent has to remember that when passed out, people do indeed wake up, and that is not going to stop them from overdosing. Therefore, no, marijuana does not help with prescription drug overdose. "There has not been any deaths directly related to marijuana," Now, this is one thing my opponent has a source cited for. Now, marijuana is considered by the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as a gateway drug. Sure, marijuana may not be directly related to a persons death, but the drugs after such as cocaine definitely have been directly added to a persons death. According to Web definitions, a gateway drug is;"a habit-forming drug that is not addictive but its use may lead to the use of other addictive drugs; " So, according to the controlled substance act, marijuana is a habit forming drug, that may lead to the use of other addictive drugs. So yes, marijuana may not be directly the cause of someone's death, the drugs used because of marijuana do lead to death. In conclusion, marijuana is an indirect cause to death. My opponent goes in to a great effort to proclaim how dangerous and "toxic" prescription drugs are. In comparison, they are more regulated and researched than marijuana! Marijuana comes in a plastic bag from any dealer, a prescription drug comes in a certified package, with directions suitable for each patient written clearly, and in most cases they are prescribed by a doctor. Not only are they tested by numerous scientists, but also companies in the US such as The Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Therefore, making them more safe than marijuana. Final argument to my opponent In conclusion, my opponents opening argument was not based of scientific data or statistics. Causing no direct advantage to society by legalizing marijuana. As my opponent states no direct plan of action to legalize and the advantages it is, so I will state a few disadvantages. 1) A gateway drug, [as defined above] to extremely addictive and harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroin. 2) Leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. The use of marijuana may lead to what is socially claimed as a "pothead," Somebody always paying for marijuana and using it, usually spending a great deal of money on it, and not keeping a good hygiene. 3) Other terms of medical pain relief. There are many prescription drugs and even other plants that relieve pain in the body, so why do we pick a drug like marijuana, that causes unhealthy lifestyles and leads to further drugs, to relieve our pain when there are much other safer ways of going about it. 4) Controversial. A lot of people disagree and want nothing to do with marijuana, and would like to stay as far away with it as they could. I have yet to meet as person that would we ok with the idea of a marijuana store opening up next door or down the road. Many may even move! The basic idea is that people do not like it. 5) We just don't need it. We have survived as humans without it, and since it will only cause harm, why do we need it? It doesn't do things that other medicine wont do anyway, and really doesn't benefit society, so why do we need it? Now since I have responded to my opponents case and presented my own, I turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources; . http://civilliberty.about.com... . http://www.thefix.com...http://www.nytimes.com...Google Web Definitions |
26 | d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America In the working world you have to interact with the opposite gender frequently. Thus, it would be detrimental to raise a child in an envrionment where the only 'work' they do is with those of thier own gender. |
39 | 7a5dcb0b-2019-04-18T12:33:14Z-00005-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | $15 Minimum Wage The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4. |
43 | aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00004-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water is harmful However, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: "No one knows what the health outcomes are. "This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, "we don't know and I don't want to find out". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that "Bottled water is not safer". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, "Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered "injurious", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...] |
48 | b661889e-2019-04-18T17:56:09Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote As the Beatles once said, "Let it be"Mother Mary comes to me. " And because I want Mother Mary to come to me, we should let it be and negate the resolved: should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote. We offer one sole observation: PRO cannot win merely by showing flaws of electoral vote; rather, they must also display solvency. Contention one: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as "a subject terrific for political analysis"it is truly a gift that keeps on giving. " He furthers that "the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching. " This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including "clarifying citizens" understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens. " Because the Electoral College uniquely creates this political discourse that provides all of the above benefits, it achieves political awareness and participation that would not be brought about by direct popular vote. Contention two: The Electoral College protects against fraud. Sub-point A: Majority fraud. According to Richard Darlington of Cornell University, "Majority fraud is when a majority within a state makes its majority look bigger than it really is, as when they stretch their candidate's vote from 60% to 70%"In an electoral college system, majority fraud conveys no advantage at all"Thus under an electoral college system the easiest type of fraud is totally useless. " In short, under the Electoral College, no matter how big the margin of victory is, the winning candidate will win the same number of electoral votes. However, the Heritage Foundation"s Tara Ross explains "direct popular vote would increase the incentive for fraud" because "any stolen vote would have at least some effect. " The impact is that the Electoral College safeguards against this fraud while direct popular vote does not. Sub-point B: Minority fraud. Darlington continues on to state that "minority fraud is when the minority manages to fraudulently gather enough additional votes to make itself look like a majority. " He explains that when this happens in an electoral college, the effects of minority fraud are restricted to the state in which it happened alone. On the other hand, minority fraud in a popular election would involve the entire nation. The impact we bring you is that direct popular vote is much more conducive to fraud than the Electoral College; thus, the Electoral College should be preferred. Sub-point C: Recounts CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in"all states where any ballots could be contested. " Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required. " Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. Contention three: The Electoral College prevents polarization. Sub-point A: Big cities. The implementation of direct popular vote would mean a focus on large cities. Darshan Goux of the University of California Berkeley explains that with popular vote, "resources, principally time and money, would remain limited "" in fact, even more so given the vastly expanded field of play. " Andy Brehm of the Minneapolis Star Tribune furthers, "If attaining the most votes nationally were all that mattered, nominees would turn a deaf ear to the rural electorate"Major cities would be the sole battlegrounds in presidential elections. " Direct popular vote would mean that candidates focus disproportionately on big cities, ignoring rural areas. This makes popular vote an intrinsically unjust system. Sub-point B: Swing states. John R. Wright of OSU conducted an empirical study demonstrating that certain states are swing states because they "closely approximate national trends. " In other words, swing states reflect the beliefs of the entire nation. This is supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, or CPVI, a political tool that measures how politically polarized states are. The CPVI finds that swing states such as Ohio or Florida are in the political center. Thus, by campaigning in swing states, candidates are appealing to the political center of America. The impact is that this is clearly preferable to having big cities decide the election. |
40 | f6f47599-2019-04-18T15:28:47Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty should be instated Thus I leave it to Pro to begin so that I will not have the unfair advantage of an extra round. |
14 | 88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual Orientation is a choice Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations " gay, straight, and bisexual " work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come "naturally"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... |
38 | c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana should be legal Sorry. I had been too far busy. To make a debate against you. I am sorry |
1 | be19aa3c-2019-04-18T19:12:23Z-00002-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Merit Pay for Teachers With being said, on with intellectual jousting I say! I shall start by rebutting PRO's case and shall then move on to dealing with her rebuttal to my own. ============= RE: PRO's Case | ============= 1) RE Obama Quote - First, it should be noted that the both of us are concerned with the economy as indicated by our respective quotes. Keep this in mind as it is quite crucial in this debate. Second, Obama's claim (though well said) is faulty as my evidence of merit based funding cited in R1 did not result in the economy improving. In fact, the very administration which instigated this is the reason for the dismal economy right now. On the other hand, my quote indicates that poor education can lead to a poor economy and merit based funding has shown as easily being a great cause of poor education. 2) RE First Contention - Even if teachers can be assured a short term gain (I say short term because this system is going to hurt everyone in the long run), it's not worth education quality slipping, hence increasing the very problem which both myself and the opposition are concerned with. There are other ways stimulate the economy right now anyway, so it's not like we even have any real reason to take this risk in the first place. Not to mention that we could just easily give teachers the chance to have bonus pay (i. e. excelling to a high level in grad school, hence giving potential teachers the incentive to improve their teaching skills) without risking poorer education quality. 3) RE Second Contention - Once more, there are other ways to motivate teachers via financial incentives. As insisted above, rewarding potential teachers who have excelled well enough or have a certain level of accomplishments would be an alternative that doesn't involve degrading education standards. Colleges are more likely to lower a potential students tuition (sometimes even giving students a full ride) based on their academic achievements in highschool. The same goes for grad schools when in comes to collegiate achievements (note that this isn't a counter plan. I'm simply pointing out that one of the reasons affirming the resolution is a terrible idea is because it's highly unnecessary). 4) RE Third Contention - Cross apply what I said above. There are other words to solve the problem of teachers being under-payed that don't revolve around the likelihood of teachers willing to tarnish their students' education all so that they'll make a few extra bucks. 5) RE Another Quote from Obama - Like I said already, merit pay is most certainly not a way that students' education "could be further improved. " It does quite the opposite. ================= Rebuilding my Case | ================= 1) The affirmative speaker has not responded to either of my quotes at the beginning of my case, thus you are to take them as being dropped. Extend both quotes! The impact of this on the debate is that one of my quotes insist that Poor education = Poor economy. With the economy being the affirmative side's primary concern, her case is utterly demolished should my points regarding poor education go through. 2) In regards to my first contention, PRO misunderstands my argument. The evidence I offered served to show that teachers have already shown themselves willing to lower the difficulty as well as limit the level of education offered in their classes so that their school would be better funded, hence resulting in better pay. If a student is given a poor education that is poor because it is pathetically easy for the student to excel in, the teachers will achieve a higher salary. As for her response to the B part of my contention, this merely fuels my case. If Merit based pay were not based on standardized testing (which exist so that student's educational knowledge can be measured on an even scale throughout the entire nation) , it would make it all the more easier for teachers to manipulate their respective curriculum in a way which lowers the standard of education and make it easier for them to maintain a high salary. 3) Cross apply my above points when it comes to part A. If standardized testing isn't the measurement system, it becomes even EASIER for teachers to sabotage student education so that they may increase their salaries. In regards to smart kids achieving more with a teacher aiding them, what good is that when teachers will likely be working in a manner which does not benefit them education wise? As for part B, if some teachers (who aren't as likely to flat out manipulate the education) have the benefit of having an administration which is actively doing it's job (i. e. Principle disciplining out of hand students so that they are less likely to be out of hand in the future), they can focus more improving education quality. The same cannot be said for teachers who essentially have to do their job as well as their administrations. IN terms of having rowdy out of control kids, PRO responds by pointing out that all teachers have these kids. Even if this is true, not all teachers have the same amount of students like this (the more there are, the harder teaching becomes). Finally, PRO points out that merit pay is extra pay, hence teachers would not be getting any less money, simply bonuses. However, getting less money is precisely what she just said. Some teachers are going to be getting more money than others. This is okay ideally, but the fact of the matter is that the conditions to earning more money is completely unfair. And that'll do it for now. |
32 | 70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00001-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Banned from voting.... I do not submit to the burden. I am too smart for that. Easy win! I am such a giver. |
30 | 5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00008-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime "If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."http://en.wikipedia.org......The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling."My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: "concealed carry handgun laws." He defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FFNo trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments."I agree to abide by these rules."Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robberyBOP even.I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.Good luck!!"I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear."This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that "the law does not reduce crime (A)". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, "the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that "concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.I support this contention with historical, empirical data."During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." [1]"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." [1]"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect." [1]Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"" [1]As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.We see this in two points:Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.[1]"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...; |
15 | 908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | animal testing. The most reason animal testing should be abolished is, we should respect animal.As you know, mankind and animal have one same thing, it is both are organism. The ultimate of reason that we are living is because, to enjoy our life, I mean to make fun with others. But how would you feel if you are trapped in a small room to used by others just because you're weaker than them? You'll said that it's unfair, because they don't even ask about your position. Some might said we shouldn't treat human and animal likewise. Anyway what I think like is this " If we are birthed in Earth, every organism no matter of their power, must treated same." Because, animals didn't choose to be animal, they didn't choose to be weaker than human, they didn't even choose to be laboratory animals. According to these reasons, I believe animal testing should be banned.---Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org...--- If you have enough time, I recommend you to read about--- Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. [26]Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. [52] Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." [53] Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [54] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [55, 56]Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH. [105] A June 1, 2006 report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans." [106] 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. [1, 2, 26]Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." [60] Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. [61, 62, 63]Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used." [64] Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research. [65]Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [66]The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [68] In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. [69]Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." [70] The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. [103] The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals. [46]Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found. |
36 | f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | does golf is a real sport hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game)." (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport. |
6 | a96d2cbd-2019-04-18T13:46:35Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted? |
6 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00004-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my "Benefits" section, shows one of the issues: "The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. " My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my "benefits" section: "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. "At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions "job connections. " In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. "Fear of failing" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if "the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? " The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote "individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor's degrees" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. "That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. "The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against "opportunities," yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing. |
16 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI |
16 | d5323527-2019-04-18T19:02:16Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | The United States Should End the War on Drugs Con begins, "Individuals participate in society because it is in the best interests of all who participate." This does not negate my citation from the last round that individuals do not have a *responsibility* to society, and thus can choose not to contribute. Con's assessment that "Left to their own device, people are selfish, cruel, and miserable" is nothing but his opinion backed up by no tangible evidence relevant to this discussion. Con's only point here is that the government does, in fact, have a right to legislate morality because he feels we are all bound by a Social Contract -- a contract that is not willingly signed or entered into when being born an American citizen. Of course just as Con notes that my statement was mearly an assertion, the same applies to his statement. We have absolutely no reason to accept that other people have the right to dictate our lives to the point of controlling what we do and do not do put in our bodies. Of course considering I am the one advocating autonomy of the self - which is inherent - it is my opponent's burden to explain why the SC is mandatory. I, obviously, will explain why this is a flawed and immoral standard. Moreover, since this can easily sidetrack from the meat and potatoes of the debate at hand (the drug war), Con can make this much easier on himself by simply citing places in the Constitution that state the government has the right to impose on our bodies the way Con suggests. Of course considering the Constitution advocates the exact opposite, it will be very difficult for my opponent to make this point. Moving on, we come face to face with a slew of straw mans and contradictions in my opponent's case. First he challenges my statements regarding the prevalence of legal prescription drug abuse. The government's Office of National Drug Control Policy notes that abuse of prescription pain killers now ranks second only behind marijuana as the Nation's most prevalent illegal drug problem [1]. Of course considering marijuana is barely physically addictive [2] and prescription drugs are, my point stands. Con takes my statement that illegal drugs are 99% less harmful than the drugs that are legal completely out of context. In this sense, harmful = deadly. I pointed out that the number of deaths resulting from illegal drugs are only 1% of that which occur from legal drugs, meaning the idea of criminalizing drugs to prevent harm (death) is backwards and does not explain why certain things (like tobacco and alcohol) are legal despite their harms. Next Con points out that less people abuse heroin than alcohol, and even notes, "heroin is effectively harmless in comparison to something such as alcohol" which we see can be verified by sources indicating tobacco and alcohol as the leading cause of hospitalization, death, etc. [3]. However a few sentences later, Con writes, "[The WOD] is a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes." Con seemingly admits that the WOD is contradictory, pointing out that heroin is less dangerous than alcohol, and then says heroin is MORE dangerous than alcohol. Well - which is it? Furthermore, even if Con's only point is that the WOD is effective at stigmatizing drugs, just because less people abuse illegal drugs does not prove anything -- of course it'd be harder to obtain drugs if they're criminalized (which also makes them more expensive). This does not change the fact that drug use has INCREASED implying that even with the stigma, people are becoming wise to the misinformation spat out by the government and/or their own curiosity and vices. Perhaps most shocking of all was Con's statement, "drugs are perfectly harmless when 'prescribed' or 'prescribable' by a doctor." This could not be further from the truth, and I'm wondering if Con does not realize that the same drugs he describes as intrinsically harmful (i.e. certain opiates) are exactly what doctors prescribe, because they're pain killers. Addictive pain killers. Narcotics, sedatives, tranquilizers and steroids are all becoming increasingly abused in this country, and they're prescribed legally. Pills prescribed by doctors are among the most addictive of all, and moreover, the real issue is that many people are illegally selling their legal prescriptions. Next Con delves into the philosophical realm of government and writes, "How can you honestly trust a person to make rational health decisions for themselves when they openly admit that their beliefs directly contradict with the most basic rules of logic?" Of course Con has absolutely no authority or right to pass judgment on another's ability to govern their person. He is not my mommy; if I wanted to take heroin, he should have NO RIGHT to stop me, and of course hasn't explained why he should have the right to do so or even that his judgment is "better" than mine. Many people have had positive experiences experimenting with certain drugs. Con nor anyone else is qualified to determine mine or another's ability to handle the repercussions. Con does raise a good argument: one that ultimately negates and defeats his very own premise. In pointing out that most of society suffers from a vice of some kind, he begs the question why the government doesn't criminalize all harmful things or things negatively impacting society. For instance, the obesity epidemic is rampant. Why not ban McDonalds? Surely if his response is "not everyone abuses it," the same exact thing can be said about drugs. My friends and I are recreational drug takers; we don't abuse them nearly enough to even begin qualifying as problematic (we may indulge every 4 months) implying the same dilemma. Why should WE be punished for the behavior of others? We don't follow that standard in other aspects of society, nor should we. There are innumerable alcoholics; alcohol is legal. We have had school shootings; guns are still legal. As you can see, this argument from Con is not very strong and in fact one he negated himself. Next Con mentions that free will probably does not exist (I agree), but says regulating human behavior is beneficial. He likens this control over others to slavery and I agree with that too. By being prohibited to act freely against their desires (in a way that does not harm another), one is indeed a slave so I expect a more profound justification of slavery in the next round. I've already explained why this is not only immoral but illegal. We can't force people to act in accordance with the values of others; that's tyranny. When Con lists a link depicting alcohol consumption by country, you'll notice Afghanistan and Albania top the list of places with the least drinking. Of course, Con completely neglects to report that these are primarily Muslim countries based largely around a religion that prohibits alcohol, making this a moot point. In conclusion, Con's only suggestion was increasing the role of the federal government - something I am not only completely against but again something that is unconstitutional. Con did not sufficiently defend a violation civil liberties, and he did not even begin to address the complete destruction of the family and one's life when punished for drug offenses. He also ignored my points about the government doling out misinformation on drugs, the government's dirty hand in the drug war (real intentions), the cycle of poverty, our history's insatiable appetite for drugs, and most importantly the inevitable gang violence and other severe, violent crime that is completely detrimental to our society and distracting our law enforcement. Extend all of these arguments, as they have not been refuted or addressed. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... |
30 | 4d21044-2019-04-18T15:20:38Z-00001-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime I will show that concealed carry laws do not reduce violent crime in any significant, measurable way. Many states have "shall issue" laws, mainly because it is considered a fundamental right. I am not against this. However, the idea that such laws actually reduce crime is an illusion. Although there may be a deterrent effect of concealed carry laws, there are also other effects that cause an increase of violent crime. Let me mention a few: Obviously, concealed weapons are used in crimes. Take for example road rage. Michael Dunn, a concealed weapon carrier, was convicted of first degree murder when he shot into an SUV with teenagers because of loud music. Nearby in my state Michigan, a father was shot in front of his family after a road rage confrontation with a concealed carry permit holder [4]. Murder by CCW holders are relatively rare, but they do happen. Another, in my opinion more important, factor is that concealed carry laws leads to more risky and confrontational behavior of the concealed weapon carrier. Studies have shown that carrying a weapon makes a person more paranoid [2]. Take for example the well publicized George Zimmermann case [3]. He followed Trayvon Martin which led to a violent confrontation. A violent crime was committed, although one may argue who the perpetrator was. It seems unlikely that Zimmermann would have followed Martin had he not been armed. The (false) sense of security of a concealed weapon may lead to more confrontational behavior that can lead to violent crime, but the concealed carrier, or by someone else. Almost all studies do not take this kind of behavior change into account. Criminals have several choices. Instead of being deterred, they could also react to a concealed carry law by arming themselves more, to have the upper hand in a possible confrontation. Such behavior would lead to more violent crime. This effect has also not been taken into account in all the studies that have been cited. In particular, deterrence theory will give only a lopsided picture, because it assumes that the criminal only has 2 choices, either commit a crime, or not. So now we have some reasons of why concealed carry laws may increase violent crime, and also one reason why it might reduce violent crime. So which effect is greater? The National Academy of Sciences, THE authority in science matters, reviewed the science on this question (including the work of John Lott) and found "There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. " [5] The Academy studied 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications. [1] . http://www.cnn.com... [2] Biggs, A. T. , Brockmole, J. R. , & Witt, J. K. (2014). Armed and attentive:_Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] . http://www8.nationalacademies.org... |
40 | 8e56b3f-2019-04-18T13:34:45Z-00007-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be abolished. The death penalty should be abolished. Death penalty-the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. "The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrant, and the appeals process is expensive and cruel to the survivng family members."-Martin O'Malley "The death penalty issue is obviously a divisive one. But, whether one if for or against, you can nt deny the basic illogic, if we know the system is flawed, if we know that innocent people are on death row, then until the system is reformed, should we not allow the death penalty to protect those who are innocent?"-Richard LaGravanese "My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody."-Steve Earle |
4 | 4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment in schools. Here is a paragraph by paragraph response to your opening argument #1-- pertaining to the definition of corporal punishment: broadly defined corporal punishment includes torture and the death penalty. With that in mind opponents of corporal punishment of children and adolescents will define it as broadly as possible and in ways unfavorable to the use of corporal punishment. Most people understand when we talk about spanking a 16 year old girl we are not talking about torture and can distinguish the difference #2 To equate the corporal punishment of adults to that of children is simply an invalid analogy. Children are different then adults and can be treated differently. Yes it is true physical correction of adult women by their husbands is much less acceptable than it used to be but it is also true in the past adult women needed to get the husband's consent for a range of activities outside the home-- including but not limited to-- a driver's license, employment, a bank account. A minor still requires a parents consent for much of this. #3 Yes there are some risks involved in the administration of corporal punishment. But so are there risks in other disciplinary approaches some of which can be serious. Such risks can be minimized if strict rules as to the administration of corporal punishment are closely followed. These would include the strap or other implement be applied only to the child's or adolescent's buttocks, the implement not be such that when applied routinely will not cause any injuries besides some reddening of the skin and perhaps a few welts that will dissipate within a few hours There is also a risk that if used as the primary means of discipline corporal punishment will gradually become less effective and as a result the severity of it will need to increase. This is why corporal punishment should never be the preferred means of correcting children and teenagers #4 What is the definition of a serious injury? There is general acceptance when distinguishing between corporal punishment of a child and adolescent and the abuse of such that a serious injury means a fracture, an internal injury, or any injury to the head. When these happen it is usually the result of excessive force being used, an inappropriate implement being used or the child not being properly restrained when receiving correction. There are less serious injuries which opponents of corporal punishment will construe as serious but really aren't when what one is describing is an isolated incident or two. |
22 | 8bc06cc8-2019-04-18T13:52:54Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | is Pepsi better than Coke How to recognise lots of different trees from quite a long way away The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch |
15 | b4a4f60-2019-04-18T16:19:38Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | drug testing on humans and animals Drug testing on humans in animals is considered inhuman or not appropriate to be done. People tend to frown upon drug testing because they are afraid of the harm it may do to the one being tested upon. drug testing is the foundation to most of our cures in this world. Many of the cures we have today is based off of drug testing. Everything we know in science comes from drug testing. The patients tested upon do not do it in vein, it is to help for the future cures for the uncured diseases. |
46 | 2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00000-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a "founding principle" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: "net neutrality" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a "founding principle," that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws "don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible." But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the "attempt to monopolize" and the "abuse of monopoly power." There's no other way to characterize "paying to block your competitors" than an "abuse of monopoly power" or an "attempt to monopolize." Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the "FCC guy" was "funded by version," but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is "already" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. |
5 | ed146d2b-2019-04-18T18:30:30Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Taxes should be Significantly Cut Point 1: Some taxes are justifiable and needed, but the current tax rates are terrible. The taxes we pay for public services with should come from the individual State and not the Country because the public services come from the State, so you would be paying for other's peoples' public services. And the taxes we pay for our social programs and our safety net should be almost completely eliminated. I believe in cutting taxes and spending. Not one or the other. And we should have our own safety net instead of relying on the Government to do that for us. And taxes do not improve overall standard of living because whatever you get out of taxes, you are still paying for it. The Wealthy have no moral obligation or duty to give back to the other people because they fund their life by providing high quality and low price goods. Point 2: Lowering taxes for the individual frees up money so that he or she can buy something and feel comfortable about it with no later regrets. And all of the Bush deficit talk was just Clinton's policies taking into effect. After 2003, the deficits decreased significantly. The rich not only invest in stocks and securities, but they buy multi-million dollar cars, houses, yachts, and much more. And a lot of that money they re-invest back into the business becuase it will make them more money. That is the one good thing about greed. It keeps business alive. And if the rich received tax cuts, they could either countribue to GDP by buying a big-ticket item or go invest in his or her business(s) which will help them by getting them more money, help the workers by having better working conditions, salaries, and a reduced risk of being laid off, and helps the consumer buy letting him or her have a high quality good at a lower price, which is very appealing in bad economic times. And again, it is not the Government's job to institute Social Programs or to build safety nets. Point 3: Like I said, you can use the sales tax during inflation. That would lower GDP, thus curbing inflation. I guess drop this tax. Point 4: I am not saying you should end Social Security, I said that it should be privatized (for businesses), and even then, it should be the employee's choice. And the businesses offering social security would not give it up because one, it does not waste their money, and two, makes sure their employees live a good life (yes, businesses care about their employees). Privatized Social Security would not only decrease taxes, reduce the deficit, and reduce Government aspending, but it would benefit the employees better than National Social Security because they can opt out when they are in a difficult financial situation and need money. Point 5: The property taxes penalize people with a lot of land. Poor or rich. A poor farmer with the same land as a billionaire would be paying the same in property taxes. It reduces agricultural yield. And the estate taxes (or inheritance taxes) are unnecessary for the same reason because they affect the poor and rich because all people inherit. And I said inheritance taxes, not estate taxeds. All pay taxes for inheritance. Point 6: If they are sold underground, by nature they are not paying taxes because that is the definition of underground selling. And excise taxes do not reduce likeihood that people engage in dangerous/poor behaviors because most of these behaviors are addictive, and they will buy the product no matter the price. And why do you think they repealed prohibition? Because prohibiting dangerous materials of that nature (not hard drugs, like alcohol or smoking) should not be prohibited or penalized by the Government. That is not their job, and they should not because it is unconstitutional. Point 7: It's not the tax cuts, it's the market speculation and Obama. The tax cuts again by nature free up money for businesses because they have more to spend. If their amount of money is over their current safety net, they will expand. There is a constant point on the safety net. It is not forever. When they expand, by nature again, they build more businesses, thus increasing GDP, hire more, this reducing unemployment and increasing GDP (because they have more money to spend), and it encourages more companies to do things like that, thus making a meaningful difference in the economy. And like you said, if the tax code was more efficient, it would increase foreign investment. Point 8: The current energy sources are fossil fuels, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that renewable energy is a lot less effective than fossil fuels. We should not be in a rush to move to renewable energy sources because it will cause a crushing recession and will slow travel down by over 95%, thus making the economy even worse. And the rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes, and the poor pay less than their fair share in taxes. Point 9: If the Government would reduce spending (which it needs to do), the current tax system would be outdated. And that quote you gave that said that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class is impossible because the current tax rates say otherwise. Contra: Sorry if this was a semi-lousy argument with no sources. I have a slight fever and forgot about my debates until it was almost too late. I will make my argument better and have a lot more sources for the next round. |
33 | 625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian!Debate Rules:1) Accept the debate first2) Then watch the video (hint: You do not need to watch the whole video)3) If you forfeit or become overly abrasive - you shall lose the debate4) List further opinions-arguments in the comments**Voters Must Read Comments Before Voting**http://www.youtube.com... |
13 | 58618adb-2019-04-18T15:12:09Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks C1) Global warming is real and is a threat To deny global warming is real and is a threat is akin to denying evolution, germ theory, and gravity. Of all the articles published between 1991 and 2012, a survey of the literature looked for explicit rejections of anthropogenic global warming theory. Of the 13,950 papers, only 24 rejected AGW theory [1. . http://www.desmogblog.com...]. A second survey of the literature found 4,000 papers which held a position on climate change. Of those, 97% endorsed that climate change was real and that humans are the main cause of global warming. The study also found—as it tracks the consensus/minority opinion by year—that "the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011. " [2. . http://skepticalscience.com...]. I will leave the evidence at this. Unless my opponent opposes climate change, I will expand upon this contention. But due to the fact academics pretty much agree on the issue, I will assume my opponent will concede/agree with this point. C2) Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions Climate change is predominantly man-made due to the fact humanity is emitting CO2 emissions. The way to prevent warming is to find an energy source which emits the least amount of CO2 possible. A review of the research suggests nuclear power is the *best* energy source if we are to pursue an end to carbon emissions. A review of 21 studies has analyzed the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of different energy sources. This is measured via CO2 emitted per megawatt hour. The least clean energy sources were coal, oil, and natural gas—with natural gas being the cleanest of the fossil fuels. The three energy sources which emitted the least was nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and wind. Solar power actually emits a surprisingly high amount of CO2 at 85 tones per megawatt hour (compared to nuclear which comes in at 28). Hydroelectric and wind power emit 26 tones per megawatt hour. It must be noted, however, that the error bars for both wind and hydro are much larger than for nuclear. This means the two are about even. The maximum estimate for nuclear is 130 tones per megawatt hour, whereas wind's max is 124 and hydroelectric at 237. The minimum estimate puts nuclear at 2 tones per megawatt hour and wind at 6. The differences between the two are so minor that the study authors concluded "Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass. " [3. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. The obvious objection is wind and hydroelectric, if they are comparable from a greenhouse gas emission perspective, is why not prefer them over nuclear power. The answer is efficiency. Wind is an intermittent power source. It only produces power when the wind is blowing. This means when the wind is not blowing, no energy is being created. Another power source would be needed in order to fill in the gaps. Nuclear power, as a clean source of energy, would be the obvious choice. So even assuming we put wind power everywhere, we would need nuclear power in order to keep a constant level of electricity running through the grid to meet peak demand. Hydroelectric, although a good power source, is already maxed out. Hydroelectric, although the "best-established means of electricity generation from renewable sources", has many issues for *future* energy production. The World Nuclear association argues, "Hydropower using large storage reservoirs is not a major option for the future in the developed countries because most major sites in these countries having potential for harnessing gravity in this way are either being exploited already or are unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations. " [4. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. It should be noted nuclear power has actually been shown to already save lives due to the fact it emits close to zero greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming nuclear power becomes the *sole* energy source (and depending on which energy source it replaces), research has found that "nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces" [5. . http://pubs.acs.org...]. The three energy sources needed to stop global warming—nuclear power, wind power, and hydroelectric power—require nuclear power in order to prevent environmental catastrophe. Wind power alone cannot reduce emissions as it is intermittent, and either fossil fuels or nuclear power is required to fill in the gaps, and hydroelectric power will likely not be able to create more energy than it already is today. So, no matter the angle you look at this issue, nuclear power is required to prevent catastrophe. C3) Nuclear power provides cheap energy and is economically efficient Not only does it provide cheap energy, but it provides jobs. One nuclear power plant generates $450 million each year of economic output, which has translated into $40 million dollars per year income for workers. Each nuclear power plant provides 400 – 700 permanent jobs which pay, on average, 36% more than other jobs in the area. Construction of a nuclear power plant provides in excess of 3,000 temporary jobs. "Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U. S. economy. " [6. . http://www.nei.org...]. In fact, other than solar power, nuclear power provides the most jobs per megawatt hour. But nuclear power plants provide the highest paying jobs and the most jobs provided in the local area—solar power makes a lot of jobs outside of the country. Nuclear power then creates the largest workforce of all of the energy sources as well as the highest paying jobs [7. . http://www.nei.org...]. Nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Coal is generally regarded as the cheapest form of energy, but nuclear power actually is cheaper. "[N]uclear generat[es] power at 2.40 c/kWh, compared with coal at 3.27 cents and gas at 3.40 cents. " [8. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. A peer-reviewed study done in Finland comes to a similar conclusion. Energy prices have been increasing all over Europe, the study argued. But nuclear power's cost only increases 9%, whereas coal got 31% more expensive and gas became 66% more expensive. Further, newer nuclear power plants are significantly reducing uranium fuel costs in order to make nuclear power even cheaper [8]. The biggest argument against nuclear power in this area is the fact nuclear power has large up-front costs. It is well known that creating a nuclear power plant can cost about 8 billion dollars. So using a lower number of 430 million, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant (30-40 years) a nuclear power plant can create up to 13 – 17 billion dollars over its lifetime—a 5 through 9 billion dollar return. Using the higher number of 450, we get 13.5 billion through 18 billion. Using the highest estimate of 470 million per year, 14.1 billion to 18.8 billion. No matter which estimate you use, the economic profit of a nuclear power plant significantly outweighs the startup costs. In 17 years, the original construction cost is accounted for with a 460 million dollar return. Thus, nuclear power is actually a good investment. It should be noted that the benefits of nuclear power could easily explode if government interference was reduced. The current regulatory structure "operates under an outdated regulatory system that has yet to adapt to new technology and designs, and it overregulates existing nuclear plants and technologies. … The commercial nuclear industry has a lot to offer American customers in the way of safe, efficient, abundant, and inexpensive energy, but that will require removing politics and burdensome government policies from the picture and replacing them with free-market policies to unlock nuclear energy's potential. " [9. . http://www.heritage.org...]. A similar conclusion was reached in a peer reviewed paper—not just by conservative extremists like me—in 2006. The paper was published in the Journal of Business Ethics. The government has significantly increased the costs while reducing the benefits of nuclear power with extensive regulation, which "has reduced the ability of entrepreneurs to develop and provide new means for the generation of energy using nuclear fuel. " [10. . http://www.jstor.org...]. So, if government interference is reduced (or reformed), the economics of nuclear power actually becomes even better than it already is. Newer reactors are much more efficient and would make the returns much larger and make the returns come much sooner! Nuclear power = the best power |
49 | 8ac3fc83-2019-04-18T18:25:08Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police should only break up volient protest I accept and will be arguing, contrary to my opponent's stance, that police officers should utilize their time and resources to doing more than only breaking up violent protests, such as solving homicides and thefts. Good luck, jess, because you sure as hell are going to need it. |
19 | fe6a066-2019-04-18T19:41:24Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches! I myself am pro gay-marriage. The way I see it, homosexuals have a right to live a homosexual lifestyle if they choose, whether I agree with it or not. Now I am not here to argue whether or not gay marriage should be legal. If my opponent does, I will refrain from posting any further arguments and I would ask the voters to vote PRO. What I am arguing is that if we legalize gay marriage, we must pass legislation protecting the rights of churches to refuse to perform such a marriage. I myself am a religous person. When I read an article about a homosexual couple who sued a church that refused to perform their marriage I was disgusted!!! The church was forced to perform the marraige on the grounds that to refuse based on sexual orientation was discrimination. Now I thought that this was a ridiculous ruling because there was a whole other aspect of this case that was ignored. There was a very clear and blatant violation of the church's freedom of religion! The church was forced to perform a marriage that was against their faith. That is a very clear violation of their religious rights. Now this disturbed me. It was one church, but if we legalize gay marriage, it will be lots of churches. It could very well be my religious leaders that will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of a court ruling. There are many churches that will perform gay marriages and those that wont should not be governmentally forced to violate their beliefs. Many would see this as being forced to sin against god! Anyway, my point is this... If we legalize gay marriage, a church's or a religious leaders rights to refuse to perform the marriage must be entact! We must pass legislation to protect it! |
30 | dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00005-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property. |
5 | 8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation. |
33 | 8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution. |
4 | 5be89fb-2019-04-18T15:46:22Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school. Justin W. Patchin states "I have been using the internet since I was 4 years old. And I have had some experiences with "cyber-bullying", as it is now called. Funny, we used to call it "people being idiots". As most people who have been actually bullied in real life will tell you, cyberbullying is really stupid. "Oh no. Some girl said to me in an email "ur fat lulz". I"m scarred for the rest of my life." Nowhere NEAR as bad as getting hit, punched, abused, ect."Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus studied 450,000 American children between the ages of three to twelve to see if traditional bullying is still the most frequent kind of bullying. Of those in his sample, eighteen percent said they had been verbally bullied (the more traditional form) while about five percent had been cyberbullied. Among those doing the bullying, Ten percent said they did it verbally, while three percent said they did it the cyber-way. Bottom line? Olweus says the main problem is bullying in the traditional form, and that cyberbullying tends to be used as just one of many tactics. In addition, Olweus suggests we shouldn't spend too much time attacking the cyber-problem, when directing typical proactive measures to the general problem of bullying should suffice. In his research, Olweus says "it turns out that cyberbullying, when studied in proper context, is a low-prevalence phenomenon, which has not increased over time and has not created many 'new' victims and bullies, that is, children and youth who are not also involved in some form of traditional bullying." In short, cyberbullying doesn't prove to be a huge problem in schools, this issue should not be handled out of school. Handling cyberbullying outside of schools is like students not doing their homework resulting in suspension, or a child stealing money from their moms purse, resulting in suspension. Small problems that should not have anything to do with school lives should not be carried on into school discipline. In conclusion, cyberbullying could easily be stopped with the log out button or simply not being part of social media, and cyberbullying outside of school should not be punished by the school as it can easily be solved by the student and would be an invasion of privacy and often lead to legal issues when attempted to be punished by schools. |
49 | f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, " Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point. ". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current "fair" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, "Why is murder wrong? ", the most common response will be, "Just because it is wrong". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable? |
5 | 36edccd6-2019-04-18T12:31:06Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security Hence, the debate will only consist of three rounds: 1st Round (Round 2) - main argument 2nd Round (Round 3) - rebuttals and criticisms of main argument 3rd Round (Round 4) - conclusion This is a basic debate about Social Security in general. For the purposes of the debate, we will use the following description to define Social Security (from Wikipedia): In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs. Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the two Social Security Trust Funds. With a few exceptions, all salaried income, up to an amount specifically determined by law (see tax rate table below), is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. All income over said amount is not taxed. In 2016, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $118,500. With few exceptions, all legal residents working in the United States now have an individual Social Security number. Indeed, nearly all working (and many non-working) residents since Social Security's 1935 inception have had a Social Security number because it is required to do a wide range of things, e. g. paying the IRS and getting a job. In 2015, Social Security expenditures totaled $750.5 billion for OASI and $146.6 billion for DI. Income derived from Social Security is currently estimated to reduce the poverty rate for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10% The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just west of Baltimore. I will mainly be arguing against Social Security as it stands today, meaning I favor having the law repealed and replaced and will present alternate programs and methods to prepare for retirement which I feel are better than Social Security. My opponent will defend Social Security and argue that Social Security, as it stands today, is the best method for workers to financially prepare for retirement than an alternative method. Good Luck! |
47 | ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Not Be Required Thanks Danielle! This debate has definitely been a fun one to participate in. [Debate Summary] Clarification It is evident that my opponent completely misunderstands what a counterplan is. My counterplan (ie. proposed changes to the status quo which gives me a fraction of the BOP) was in regards to quantity because, obviously, I can feasibly make sure that all homework is beneficial and of a good quality - that does NOT mean that I can't talk about homework quality within the status quo and in the past because my counterplan is not a list of my advocacies (as my opponent seems to believe). Ergo, there is no contradiction, I hope it is now clear to my opponent and to voters of what a counterplan is and how it is different to my advocacies and rebuttals. So, just to clarify, my counterplan states that quantity is too high so it will be reduced. My rebuttal to my opponent's source is that it addresses an older version of the education system with different qualities of homework. These statements are not contradictory and can coexist without any contradictions. Nobody should be confused by this. I extend those arguments. Point 1 The outcome of this contention is simple. My opponent uses incredibly unreliable data that fails to account for 99.99999163742% of the children in the world (children in poverty and in poor conditions are still children and should be [and are] included in this figure). Virtually all of my opponent's sources here deal with large quantities of homework which is something that I'm specifically advocating the removal of from the status quo (as is made evident in my counterplan). My opponent has attempted to show that my sources do not account for as many people as hers however my sources are not being used in the same way that hers are. She is using her sources to prove that homework should be abolished using statistical data. I was using mine for general claims that bare the same weight regardless of the amount of people involved since I did not use these for statistic related claims. She also appears to believe that not every beneficial thing must be mandatory. I have accepted this however my opponent seems to believe that this is as far as her burden requires her to achieve. This is objectively false. There are some things that are beneficial and should be mandatory (my opponent concedes this). Therefore, my opponent's burden entails them in proving that whilst homework can be beneficial it should not be mandatory. My concession of beneficial things not having to be mandatory does not mean that my opponent's burden is advanced in any way. Counterplan 1A. My opponent once again misunderstands what a counterplan is. My opponent lies about me saying that my counterplan involves only beneficial homework being implemented. She tries to get out of this precarious situation she's been put in by saying that by saying this it means that I advocate all homework - even non beneficial homework. This is simply not true. A counterplan is a proposed change to the status quo on the the negative case's behalf. I cannot make a beneficial related change to the status quo because as my opponent pointed out earlier on in this debate, that simply isn't feasible. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer there to be only beneficial homework, I would. Though this is virtually impossible so I am focussing my counterplan elsewhere. 1B. My opponent makes an identical misinterpretation to what she says in response to point 1A. Just because I'm not making a proposed change on the status quo to make all homework beneficial, doesn't mean that I do not advocate this - I merely find this proposed changed to be unfeasible and unrealistic. Please extend my counterplan as my opponent pretty much drops it all and instead resorts to refuting nonexistent argument regarding benefits and then making strange and ultimately false complaints about me advocating homework that isn't beneficial. Point 2 In this contention I proved that the burden on parents is of an extremely low percentage. The majority are clearly content with the status quo. Regardless, even if this objection fails you still ought to presume Con as the counterplan minimizes homework quantity for those that receive too much homework, therefore the burden on parents is virtually non existent. Either way, you ought to consider this point in my favor. She also raised the objection of family time being lost which was also refuted by the fact that I used psychological evidence in order to refute this point and show that in reality family time is created as opposed to being lost. I also showed that students are set based on abilities and are given the amount of homework that should be sufficient in correlation with their ability so that everybody spends the same amount of time on homework (though not necessarily doing the same amount of homework or the same difficulty level in homework). Furthermore, I managed to show that parents doing homework is neither good nor bad. Though no benefits at all is worse. Sets and teaching opinion on students is formulated based on class work and examination (which I proved via citation in the previous round). Therefore, whilst this does happen, all this means is that some students won't gain anything from homework and some will. I refuted the objection in regards to resources due to the fact that schools take the student's parents/carers financial state into consideration. My opponent blatantly lies when she says: "Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. " This is massively untrue. I will quote my response from R3: "She helps explain the very purpose of homework itself. She points out that homework cannot be monitored in regards to approach and therefore students may not grasp or understand the material properly. If they do not understand it and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher's duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them. The lesson is designed to teach all students generally. The homework shows specific pupils progress and understanding of that lesson which teachers can then monitor and intervene if necessary in order to help said student to understand it properly". My opponent's claim that I dropped this is ludicrous. Point 3 My opponent claims that homework cuts time into things and she also claim that it provides a second shift of work for children. This is automatically negated by the counterplan. Additionally, even if my counterplan was not enacted this contention would still work in my favor since after school activities exist and I presented a large statistic showing that people have plenty of time to do homework alongside activities and I demonstrated that there are a record breaking amount of people in part time jobs in the UK which my opponent drops. Point 4 I have shown that homework does not count towards sets for children. In fact class work and examination are used only. The only claims that my opponent has been able to muster are bare assertions that homework is often graded (which is irrelevant since grading homework is not the same as taking it into consideration when assessing that student's ability - which is what general classwork and examinations are for). I concede that cheating happens however my opponent's website regarding cheating statistics is unreliable (and my opponent drops this argument). We can conclude that since homework does not count for anything important, cheating has no effects (neither positive or negative). Whereas the students that opt in to do their homework properly receive the benefits from homework which my opponent concedes when she says that just because homework is beneficial, doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. Once again, my opponent lies and states that I dropped the effects of HW's drill and kill methodology. This is false. Again, I will have to quote my response which my opponent supposedly claims is nonexistent when she says that I dropped it: "Again, the review my opponent cites in an attempt to prove that homework results in the loss of sleep, self esteem and childhood is refuted by the counterplan as it once again references to excessive homework and homework taking up valuable time from children. " The outcome of this debate is incredibly clear. The resolution is negated. |
24 | 1e1c8b2a-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | a progressive tax rate Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance |
9 | a149e8-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | In the United States, burning the American flag should be legal. KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KfC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! |
46 | cf564678-2019-04-18T11:34:29Z-00003-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | We must Kill Cooper I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think that i should die because i am very cool and I like all the cool things like mtg pheonix games and hobbies I dont think t |
3 | 41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00023-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Carbon emissions trading Emissions trading reduces economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions. |
34 | 862bd0ff-2019-04-18T11:42:52Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | social media good for young children The one common bad effect of social media is addiction " the constant checking of Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media updates. Experts believe that knowing what"s going on with friends and what they are thinking or feeling can be addicting. Researchers at UCLA"s Brain Mapping Center has found that being appreciated in social media through "likes" was seen in brain scans to activate the reward centers of the brain. This reward circuitry is particularly sensitive during adolescence, and this may partly explain why teenagers are more into social media. For kids and teens, knowing how many people like what they posted, how many followed (or unfollowed) them, and knowing what people say about them also leads to compulsive checking. This addiction to social media could disrupt other worthwhile activities like concentrating on schoolwork, reading or engaging in sports. The heaviest social media users admit to checking their social media feeds more than 100 times a day, sometimes even during school. Bad effects of social networking to kids and teens, according to psychologists or suggested by scientific studies, are as follows: A 2015 U.K. Office for National Statistics finds that children who spend more than 3 hours each school day on social media sites are more than twice as likely to suffer poor mental health. Their immersion in a virtual world may cause these children to experience delay in their emotional and social development. According to the report, social media are potentially "a source of social comparison, cyber bullying and isolation", which could lead to mental health problems. A report published by IZA Institute of Labor Economics even suggests that just one hour a day on social media can make a teen miserable. The study also theorized that this may be caused by issues of cyberbullying, an increase in social comparisons, and a decrease in real-life, face-to-face activities. Another 2015 study by the British Psychological Society finds that teenagers being obligated to be responsive to social media (liking posts, answering texts and direct messages) throughout the day affect their mental health. A University of Michigan study seem to indicate that in young adults, Facebook use leads to decline in subjective well-being. The more young adults use Facebook, the worse they feel moment-to-moment and the less they feel satisfied with their lives overall. DoSometing.org, "one of the largest organizations for young people and social change", lists several bad effects of social media, which includes sleep disorder, depression, addiction, 24/7 stress, isolation, insecurity, and fear of missing out (FOMO). FOMO or the fear of missing out on something important (like their friends" jokes, parties, activities and other ways of having fun) leads to depression and anxiety in teen social media users, according to a survey done by the Australian Psychological Society. FOMO is one of the main reasons for teenagers" heavy use of social media. Screen relationships detract from spending time in real life relationships and developing social skills. According to Patricia Greenfield, professor of psychology in the UCLA College, the implications of her research is that when people use digital media for social interaction, they"re spending less time developing social skills and learning to read nonverbal cues. "Social interaction is needed to develop skills in understanding the emotions of other people." The results of a survey from the University of Glasgow shows that social media use particularly at night, with strong emotional involvement, led to poorer sleep quality, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of anxiety. This can be a problem since teens with low self-esteem grow up as depressed adults, according to previous studies. Social networks are fertile grounds for bad influencers and anonymous venoms and hunting grounds for deviants and other predators. For kids who crave attention, Facebook and other social network becomes a venue for them to act out. These kids may make inappropriate statements, pictures and videos that could ultimately harm them. Also, posts and materials that are published online tend to be permanent and may haunt them in the future. A study by Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University concludes that extended use of social networks like Facebook can result in a decrease in empathy among teens, and thus an increase in narcissism. Young people who have a history of harming themselves or attempting suicide might be particularly vulnerable to negative messages posted online, new research shows. The new review, published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, found that kids and young adults who have thoughts of self-harm or suicide actually spend more time on the Internet and are more often victims of cyberbullying than their peers who do not have such thoughts. Some kids realize that spending a lot of time in social media results in wasted time, and this negatively affects their mood Selfies, which became popular with the rise of camera phones, can trigger mental health conditions when a person becomes obsessed with looks. The Mirror, for example, recently featured a selfie addict who tried to kill himself when he couldn"t take a perfect photo. According to Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today, "Preoccupation with selfies can be a visible indicator of a young person with a lack of confidence or sense of self that might make him or her a victim of other problems as well. Excessive and increasingly provocative selfie-ing is a form of "acting out," a common behavioral pattern to get attention." Educators also note that for kids and teens in social networks, there are no spelling and grammar rules. In fact it is cool to misspell and not make sense. Less sophisticated children will find it hard to differentiate between social networking communication and real world communication. In fact many teachers are complaining that social networking communication with misspellings and lack of grammar are seeping through student"s school writings. Social media habits are also blamed for lack of sleep and sleep problems in teenagers. Bright light emitted from smart phones and tablets are thought to disrupt sleep cycles. For young people sleep is important for learning, the development of the young brain, as well as for growing and staying healthy. Baroness Susan Greenfield , a top neuroscientist of the Oxford University warns about the lifelong effects of too much social networking: Facebook and other networking sites "are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a short attention span and live for the moment". There is hardly any concentration skills required in participating in these social networking sites, and these train the brain to have poor attention span. Kids are detracted from learning to communicate in the real world. There are reports from teachers that social networking is affecting kids" comprehension levels. Also, if kids communicate primarily through the screen they do not learn the subtleties of real life communication " such as body language, tone of voice, and subconsciously sensing the molecules that other people release. Social networking sites make kids more self-centered. Since Facebook and other sites give kids their own page which is about them, it leads some vulnerable kids to think that everything revolves around them, a precursor for emotional problems in their later life. This might also result in inability to empathize. These sites make kids prone to sensationalism. Thank you for reading my argument, please consider it. |
7 | ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be "fair" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is "gain the right to vote" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of "excessive sanctions." The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of "previous condition of servitude." The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the "Great Melting Pot" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :) |
32 | ce25039b-2019-04-18T11:25:35Z-00001-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Tunak Tunak Tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna vajje tumbe vaali taar Sun dil di pukaar Aaja kar layieh pyaar Sweetheart, the strings of the instrument play Listen to what the heart says Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi The world is a colorful place It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Listen friends the iktaara" says Mehndi's friends Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna kadeh mere nal hass Mainu dil valli dass Nahin taan teri meri bass Sweetheart, come smile with me sometimes My heart's keeper (lover) look This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi The world is a colorful place It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna tu chann mein chakor Sadde varga na hor Rab hath saddi dor Sweetheart, you are moon and I am chakor" There no one like us Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da |
16 | a629bc60-2019-04-18T15:38:05Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States To start, there are next to 0 limitations on dietary supplements in the United States. It is legal to make nearly any claim as to to the effects of supplements without having the claims grounded in anything that could be considered near fact. Claims can be utterly fabricated. In addition, it is illegal for any foods in the United States to claim that they can have a positive affect on an individual's health as that is only allowed in the cases of medicine. For this reason, foods that have been scientifically proven to aid an individual's health are not allowed to claim said information. Instead, individual's are encouraged to pursue avenues of medication rather than natural remedies for bodily issues. Drug use itself is blatantly misappropriated within the United States. The CIA has been under suspicion for taking part in the trafficking of cocaine in Central America for decades. In addition to this, medications which would not allow for pharmaceutical profit are generally swept under the rug whereas medications that gain pharmaceutical companies profit are encouraged almost universally. It has been proven that "magic mushrooms" can have extremely positive effects on mental diseases such as depression and OCD when used in a clinical setting. http://www.cnn.com... -However, despite this information and the low cost of using such a method of treating mental health disorders, the drug is not used in the treatment of patients. Instead, other drugs with significantly more short and long term side effects are used in treating such mental health diseases. Such side effects include nausea, insomnia, anxiety, decreased sex drive, dizziness, weight gain, tremors, sweating, fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, headaches, and more. http://www.helpguide.org... The pharmaceutical industry is debatedly the most profitable industry on the planet. The median annual American pharmaceutical company profits is over 3 times the amount of all of the fortune 500 companies. It would be impossible to maintain these types of profits if the FDA was not compliant in the pharmaceutical companies introducing new drugs to the market. As the FDA is part of the United States government, it is in the governments' best interests to preserve one of its most powerful industries. Former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell once wrote "Its time to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies" (Boston Globe, February 26th, 2007). In 1992, the FDA passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for each brand name drug considered for approval. This user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the very industry it's intended to regulate. For this reason, it also drastically changed the way the organization operates, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the drug companies. The part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half its money from user fees. This is underscored by the composition of the FDA's 18 advisory committees. Many of these advisers work as consultants for drug companies. As a result of these factors, the FDA now oftentimes behaves as if the pharmaceutical companies are the users rather than the public. In 2010, the fee revenue given by the pharmaceutical industry to the FDA was over 500 million dollars. One example of how this has been abused by the FDA is in the area of cancer research and drug administration. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski developed a form of cancer treatment decades ago named antineoplastons. He's been using the treatment with great success on his patients for decades and patented the treatment well over 2 decades ago. Since that time, the United States has filed 11 separate patents on what Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski already had a clear patent for, all of them being patent infringement. http://www.burzynskimovie.com... It's too important a thing to keep the profits in the hands of the corporations and industries rather than a single individual with a treatment option for a specific disease. The profits themselves have become more important than the treatments. Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances." Dr. Julian Whitaker sums up the case of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski by stating "How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!" Because the FDA is largely in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, the administration of and testing of drugs has become subject to their needs rather than the needs of the people. This makes the goal of the industry to be more about profits than about helping the people. |
41 | a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00004-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you. |
3 | ec2de89b-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00000-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Gay marriage should be allowed The idea of marriage is for two people to be together. The same can be said for civil unions, so what's the big deal? |
48 | 7fd7282c-2019-04-18T19:35:25Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The American Drinking Age Should be Lowered The Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18. Firstly, my opponent's argument, insofar as it relates to teenagers, has a very limited application to the subject of this debate. That is because she defines "teenager" as someone between the ages of 13 and 19 and the proposed legal drinking age is 18. Thus, her "teenager" argument only covers 1 year of the 3 years in issue. The fact that alcohol is generally harmful is not relevant to the issue as the question is at what age people should be allowed to use that harmful substance and not whether people should be allowed to use it at all. For example, using my opponent's logic we might as well increase the legal drinking age to 30 so that even less people get affected by this dangerous substance. Alcohol is an addictive drug and it has harmful effects on people of all ages. If you start drinking at 40, you may become dependent on alcohol and suffer some, most or even all of the negative effects it can have on a person's life. The question for this debate is simply this: at what age is a person mature enough to be allowed to make decisions about their own body, mind and life. We allow youths to drive cars at 16. We allow them to fly planes at 17. We allow them to marry at 18 (in most jurisdictions). We allow them to be parents at 16 (again, in most jurisdictions) or, at the most, 18. In effect, we are saying that a 16 or 18 year old is mature enough to entrust him/her with the life of another person; the life of a baby. It is of no small consequence here that babies are completely vulnerable and therefore to entrust someone with the life of a baby is the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY possible. And yet few would argue that an 18 year old mother should, simply due to her age, have her child taken off her by Welfare. How does my opponent reconcile this with saying that the same 18 year old mother is not mature enough to make decisions about her own body? We send 18 year olds to war and entrust them with not only their own lives but the lives of their co-combatants. We give them the responsibility to decide about the life and death of an enemy combatant. We entrust them with the task of protecting our country and our way of life. And yet my opponent suggests that an 18 year old is not mature enough to make decisions about alcohol consumption. Interestingly enough, the legal drinking age in the armed forces is in fact 18. Most countries (by far) allow people to drink alcohol at 18. I would suggest that my opponent look at some statistics and see if there's anything to suggest that young people in countries such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany or France (to name a few) are on average less intelligent (damaged pre-frontal cortex) than those in the USA. I would be surprised if she found that to be the case. I also challenge her to show that youth crime is higher in those countries than it is in the USA. I would be equally surprised if she found that to be the case. And yet, those countries allow 18 year olds to consume alcohol whereas in the USA that age is 21. My opponent's argument focuses on countering the enforceability argument. She says that the fact that people do not obey a law is not enough of a reason to abolish that law. That much is true. However, let us look at this a little deeper. Kids who cannot buy alcohol legally will usually get an older friend to buy it for them. Sometimes, they will have a fake ID. Some may turn to a black market dealer and thus become exposed to other illicit drugs. It is a known fact that through prohibiting something we encourage a black market for it and thus we create crime. Just consider the implication that Prohibition had. It made for a spread of organised crime (mafia). Allowing younger people to drink and to do it legally would mean they could do so openly. It would enable them to openly discuss their problems, should such problems (drink-related) arise. My opponent claims that the youth of America is not mature enough to drink alcohol. However, she fails to show any evidence of this. She fails to show that the youth of USA is less mature than that in a country where the legal drinking age is 18. I contend that she is not correct on this point. I believe that people mature around the same age worldwide. I do not have any evidence for it and neither do I need to produce any. We can argue this point on our respective say-so's. My opponent's citation from "Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research" was of little assistance. I could not locate the article she referred to. "Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research" is the name of a journal and not of a particular study. However, for the purposes of this debate, I will assume that the article exists and that the experiment in it had the results as put by my opponent and that it was scientifically sound (eg, had a control group). This does not further my opponent's argument, however. The only question for us to answer is whether people at 18 years of age are responsible enough to make decisions about their own body. As above, I contend that they are. In conclusion, the legal drinking age in the USA should be lowered to 18. We already recognise 18 year olds as responsible adults and we entrust them with humongous responsibilities, including the ultimate responsibility (raising a child). People at 18 are mature enough to decide about their own bodies and their own lives. Additionally, by lowering the legal drinking age to 18, the USA would be consistent with by far most countries of the world. The present legal drinking age in the USA is a hypocrisy. While maintaining that the legal drinking age is 21, most states allow minors or young adults to consume alcohol in private settings. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This does not directly address my opponent's argument, of course, as she will simply respond that two wrongs do not make a right and that these laws should be changed so as to prohibit private consumption as well. My opponent claims that 18 is too irresponsible to consume alcohol. |
36 | 8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Thanks again for the debate, it certainly has been fun. My opponent starts of his last round with a counter argument to my 450 tee offs argument. He calculates the number 21,168, which I will accept. 21,168 divided by 450 is 47.04, so there are 47.04 times as many swings in ping pong as there are in golf. I'll plug in both the force from swinging a ping pong paddle/golf club and ping pong ball/golf ball. Newtons are, as I quoted in my second round:"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared" This means that we must plug in kilograms, not grams. Ping pong paddle: 77 GRAMS x 1.875 m/s2 which is equal to .077 KILOGRAMS x 1.875 m/s2. This is .144375 Newtons. Golf club:115 GRAMS x 78 m/s2 which is equal to .115 KILOGRAMS x 78 m/s2. This is 8.970 Newtons. If we divide the force to swing a golf club (8.970) by the force to swing a ping pong paddle (.144375) we get 62.129870. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to swing a golf club 450 times than to swing a ping pong paddle 21,168 times. I'll plug in the new numbers that my opponent got for a ping pong ball and golf ball, which I accept. .0050625 Newtons for the ping pong ball. 3.58254 Newtons for the golf ball. 3.58254 divided by .0050625 is 707.6622222. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to hit a golf ball 450 times than to hit a ping pong ball 21,168 times. (1), checked with (2) My opponent concedes that there are more variables affecting golf than ping pong, on top of the increased amount of force required to swing a golf club and hit a golf ball. I cannot assign a number value to these variables, because they are variables, but they do make it more difficult to consistently win golf. My opponent even says " I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much." which shows that variables make it harder to play golf, but by a small/unknown amount. I agree that the hole in one "is a rarity of golf", but it was just an example to show that it requires more accuracy to hit a ball a farther distance with the same accuracy. I agree that "this "incredible accuracy" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved", but that means that luck is also involved in ping pong, so ping pong is not any more of a sport than golf. The statement "in all sports luck is involved" negates the resolution, and my opponent said it, not me. My opponent's next argument is about the math, which I went over above. My opponent's last argument is that " ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait", and I agree with this, but he has not given a number value, similar to how I could not give a number value to the variables affecting golf. It is not possible to show that ping pong is harder than golf when we have an unknown value making it more difficult on each side. We cannot weigh EITHER unknown value as greater than the other, so the resolution must be negated. Conclusion: My opponent has not offered any arguments against my first contention or my subpoints a) or b), as I stated in my second round. My first contention is very important because I defined a sport as a noun and argued that nouns could not be more of themselves than the same noun. In other words, as my opponent agreed with, "If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports." This negates the resolution, if they are equal sports then ping pong cannot be more of a sport than golf, they are equal. My subpoints a) and b) were mainly for clarification, so it doesn't really matter that much that my opponent agreed with them. The voting issues in this debate (as I see them) should be: 1. A sport cannot be "more of a sport" than another sport because sport is a noun. My opponent agreed with this. 2. The Force associated with playing each sport, which sport puts more stress on the body due to the forces. 3. Which sport takes more accuracy. 4. The variables affecting golf make golf a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. 5. The moving ping pong ball makes ping pong a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. I believe that I have won on the majority of these arguments and I urge you to vote negative. (1)-http://www.ajdesigner.com... (2)-http://calculator.com... Thanks for the debate, Witty, it's been fun. |
48 | e62a27a7-2019-04-18T11:20:35Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 In the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth? |
11 | 117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues As he has not yet explained his case, I hope that he will take the next round to clarify it as I have in the first, but for now, I will focus on providing advantages for my case. The current system for athletes is such that they already put themselves at great physical risk in endeavoring to be the best. Just as a result of training, athletes suffer intensely. High altitude training is a must for many athletes, as it leads to a much higher production of red blood cells and therefore more transport of oxygen through the body, increasing endurance. However, acclimatisation to high altitude leads to the production of too many red blood cells, making the blood thicker and reducing blood flow. This stresses out the heart, and deprives parts of the body of oxygen. High altitudes also lead to intense weight loss (both from loss of appetite and the body eating itself), risks of weakening the body's immune system, and lengthened times of recovery from muscle damage. That's not to mention the expansive list of altitude illnesses that can result from pressure changes and oxygen deprivation. [1] Pro athletes train for 5-6 hours a day 6 days a week, training intensely the entire time. Typical athletes have to maintain incredibly high heart rates for long periods of time, stressing their hearts in the process. [2] This all comes in part from the extremely unhealthy diets that these athletes ingest, as well as excess stress. [3] What are the results of all this? Cardiomyopathy, enlarged hearts, wearing down of heart valves. [5] This leads to a much higher likelihood of early and sudden death. [4] This is played out in football, where the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years. [6] Overtraining can lead to massive systemic issues, such as imbalances in the brain, nervous and hormonal systems, upper respiratory illness, compromised immune function, and chronic inflammation. [3] The basis for this harm actually plays out as a result of free radical production, which causes chain reactions that destroy cells in the body. [4] Athletes push themselves through pain and injury, and are expected to do so in order to achieve glory, thus perpetuating health harms, and spurning treatment and prevention efforts. [3] But the hypocrisy goes beyond training. Athletes are allowed to use any number of dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, and medical treatments to enhance their performance. Vitamin pills are commonly used, megadoses of which have been shown to cause a number of deaths among athletes and significant health harms even at regular doses. [7][8] Many use whole-body Lycra suits, and the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit is thought to be responsible for breaking world records in swimming, increasing the costs required in order to succeed. [9] Steroids will not significantly add to these harms. More than that, it's hypocritical, and the legal structure of any organization should always endeavor to be consistent. If they're going to allow athletes to engage in practices such as I've detailed above (and, in fact, encourage it), then they should allow similarly damaging practices that the players take upon themselves to engage in. These athletes are allowed to put themselves in harm's way in dozens of other ways (not to mention the numerous ways in which they're made vulnerable to physical injury), and I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to use of drugs. Why are these allowed while steroids and hormones remain problematic? It's really just a perceptual thing " steroids are viewed as cheating, whereas all of these are effectively reasonable, despite the health harms associated with them. But the reality is that the current system is the one that encourages cheating, not one in which these are legalized. Why is that? The main reason is that athletes and the organizations behind them have found ways to outwit the system. Athletes pursue alternatives to the usual anabolic steroids and hormones that allow them to fly under the radar. Designer steroids are "manufactured to closely resemble existing known compounds, but with sufficient chemical diversity to ensure that their detection by the WADA accredited laboratories is more difficult. "[10] We manage to find the ones we know exist, but lack detection mechanisms for new designer steroids, detection cannot keep up with the rate of development. Gene doping is a newer system based on gene therapy, which is meant to insert a gene into a given site in the body, where it will then produce large amounts of steroid/hormone endogenously. It's not safe, and it's untested in humans, yet athletes have already begun to pursue it. [11] They may even already have been used at Sochi. [12] There are three major harms to this system 1. It's classist. It allows only those who are capable of affording these expensive alternatives to engage in this type of cheating. Only those who can afford the increased expense can rise to the top, something that legalized, cheap steroids could demonstrably improve upon. 2. It damages the credibility of sporting leagues, who often don't detect these for years and even decades, and of athletes and their organizations, who are forced to hide their usage. They can acquire any number of medals over the years, be idolized and immortalized by their records, and then have to be torn down much later, much to everyone's embarrassment. This also ends up damaging the organizations they're associated with. A great example is Lance Armstrong, who started the Lance Armstrong Foundation. They were forced to change their name to Livestrong, and lost the very helpful endorsement of Nike, thus reducing valuable contributions to an organization aimed at supporting cancer victims. 3. It's more dangerous for athletes. At best, they're getting these from reputable sources, where they've only been lightly tested, and thus they're using the athletes as guinea pigs, causing major harms. [10] Since they are normally less effective than what is detectable,[13] they have to take more, exacerbating the problem. And the reality is that most of them won't come from reputable sources, and any number of dangerous substances may exist alongside their choice doping agent. These athletes are far less likely to pursue the far more dangerous, less effective, and more expensive route to success in the absence of a ban. They will be taking thoroughly tested steroids and hormones, often prescribed by doctors and health officials who can monitor them. Here's another benefit, though it may seem counter-intuitive " steroids provide an opportunity to level the playing field. Individuals produce different levels of testosterone, which can dramatically affect muscle growth. [19] Those with anemia are effectively handicapped by the lack of oxygen shuttling through their bodies. The presence of hormone injections and compounds that control red blood cell production like erythropoietin make it possible for these athletes to keep up. Con, you have the floor. 1. www. altitude. org/altitude_training. php 2. health. india. com/fitness/a-professional-athletes-fitness-regime-an-insiders-guide/ 3. www. philmaffetone. com/files/20158/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy. pdf 4. . http://imbodybuilding.com... 5. . http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com... 6. . http://strengthplanet.com... 7. . http://whatstheharm.net... 8. . http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... 9. . http://www.economist.com... 10. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. . http://www.bbc.com... 12. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 13. . http://www.steroid.com... 14. . http://www.livescience.com... |
14 | 2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more "men on men" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be. |
10 | 70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | 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. |
27 | 718b7e3d-2019-04-18T11:34:25Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun laws Should the gun laws be more strict? |
9 | 933bdbc1-2019-04-18T11:31:43Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | serbia started th ewar serbia is very bad. this guy killed someone meaning serbia as a whole is bad. die die die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to use up all my characters;. DIE DIE DIE. The driver was bad but serbia was worse! DIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE. serbia badvDIE. DIE |
34 | 4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con! |
21 | c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Humanity is the main cause of global warming. The word 'main' as used in the debate heading presents the position that humanity's contribution to global warming is greater in magnitude than any other factor. The definition of 'main' could be explained as: chief or principal in rank, importance, size, etc. Therefore, Pro must prove that the human portion is in fact the largest of factors. Of course, the human portion needn't be greater than 50% of the total effect if there are multiple elements/factors at play. I also agree that it is more than possible that human activities could affect, change or initiate natural processes, but again, that would have to be quantified (what portion of a natural system has been altered by human elements versus natural change). Natural and human effect can be intertwined and extremely complicated, if not impossible to differentiate and separate. This is referred to as the "attribution of recent climate change". I will reference the following scholarly article: https://gfdl.noaa.gov... "Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report". The authors make several important conclusions in this comprehensive study: "Greenhouse warming alone is insufficient to explain the observed pattern of climate change." and "The most probable cause of the observed warming is a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources (see also Tett et al. 1999). But given the large model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot currently be given. In short, we cannot attribute, at this time, with a high level of statistical significance, the observed changes in global and large-scale regional climate to anthropogenic forcing alone.". This research contradicts Pro's assertion that human causes are definitively more important than natural ones. In addition, to say that our current warming trend was caused solely by the industrial age based on the chart I presented (in round 3) would be to dismiss the fact that the sharp rebound from the Little Ice Age and commencement of our current warming trend (1600-) was initiated and occurred well before human activity was a relevant factor. I agree with much of the content contained within the two sites referenced by pro, but none of them contains information that establishes that human activity plays a greater role than natural variability. The CO2 now website asserts that "The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions." and lists several of the unique contributions and circumstances associated with human activity and greenhouse gasses. It also states that "the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes." These are grand statements, but there is no attempt to quantify them unlike the formal research document I presented above (which contradicts these sites). There is also no mention on Pro's sites of the fact that our current warming period was initiated well before the industrial age and human influence by natural forces. Even the IPCC continues to protect its reputation by using vague terms such as "...likely" regarding the position of humanity's "...dominant role in global warming". I acknowledge that we currently are experiencing global warming. For those who lived in 1100 BC and 1300 AD, they also experienced global warming on a larger scale than we do today, even though human activity had little correlation to that warming. Thus, to say that Global Warming is unique to the industrial age is false. It is also very likely that scientists will one day be able to prove/quantify what portion of Human Activity is attributable to global warming. Presently, it is not possible as my opponent acknowledges. This is why no scientist(s) or scientific body has declared a victory on this issue (A quantified attribution of recent climate change). In fact, a very large amount of money and large amount of research continues to be spent on this very issue because it has yet to be proved or resolved. I also agree that the current warming period presented on the on the chart I referenced is abrupt and is likely a reflection of the influence of human activity. Being that this warming period has yet to exceed several recent warming periods in effect and duration, we need more time in order to be able to place our current warming period into the context of other prior larger warming periods. It is simply premature to state definitively that human activity is the main factor in global warming. My statement is reflected in the current feverish rate of research being performed into the Attribution of Recent Climate Change. If a definitive conclusion had been reached, this research would not be needed to such a degree. Keep in mind, that I am not advocating that humanity should not take responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary. |
29 | 2992f802-2019-04-18T14:22:55Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | European countries should restrict immigration Conclusion. Mass immigration is bad for Europe. It will cause more violent crime, a poorer quality education, more tax dollars taken for welfare, a clash of cultures and religions, and many other problems. European countries, along wot the Arab guff states, America, Canada and Australia should take in as many actual refugees as they can socially and economically support. We owe fellow human beings kindness and compassion, BUT no one owes anyone their culture or their future. No country should allow crime levels to rise, their education quality to decrease and their cultures to be forcibly changed. Mass immigration will 1. cause more violet crime, as may migrants have beating up, robbing an raping Europeans and other migrants . http://www.infowars.com... http://www.infowars.com... http://www.infowars.com... Islamic rape gangs abusing white euroean gidlr is an epidemic in erope. http: http://www.infowars.com... Even before this crisis migration caused a rise in crime in many European countries In the U.K Muslim rape gangs have abused white girls in... Rotherham (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Rochdale (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Derby (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Oxford (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Bristol (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Telford (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Peterborough (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Bambury (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Aylesbury (https://en.wikipedia.org...) In Denmark Somalis were sentenced for crimes, including innumerable sexual assaults, almost ten times more often than those with Danish citizenship. More than half of all convicted rapists in Denmark have an immigrant background, according to official statistics, despite the fact that immigrants and their descendants account for less than 10 per cent of the population. In Sweden Rapes rose 1,472% since the mid-70"s,when they opened their doors to immigration with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975. 77.6 percent of the country"s rapists are identified as "foreigners" even though they are less than 10 % of the population. Norway Almost half of all rapes committed in Oslo in 2011 were carried out by people of African, Middle Eastern or Asian descent despite the fact that Muslim immigrants only represent 1.5% of the population. 100 % of aggravated rapes involving physical violence were committed by individuals of African, Middle Eastern or Asian descent 2. be detrimental to education 45 per cent of children in Sweden who do poorly on tests are immigrant according to Wikipedia. 86 per cent of men and 73 percent of women and 79 per cent of the general population in Syria are literate. So European school kids will have to be in class rooms with other children who don"t speak their language, many of whom can"t even read or write"which will obviously be detrimental to the education systems in European countries. 3 have negative impact on economics In Sweden Forty-two% of the long-term unemployed people are immigrants and fifty-eight % of welfare payments go to immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. 4 a problem with assimilation. Assimilation will be impossible when thousands are taken in at a time. And again lets be clear 21% of the migrants from Syria (http://ec.europa.eu...) while the rest have not been affected by the Syrian civil war. Others are pretending to be Syrian in order to get to Western Europe. According to the Serbian boarder police 90% of those arriving in Macedonia claim they are Syrian even though they have no documents to prove it. The chief of the European Union border agency Frontex said that trafficking in fake Syrian passports has increased. http://www.smh.com.au... Many are fleeing conflict in other countries besides Syria. Many others who are Syrian or are fleeing conflict in another country aren"t refugees. A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. They were refugees when they left Syria and came to Turkey. They were safe in Turkey but have left and are coming to Western Europe for a higher standard of living. This makes them economic migrants. 72 per cent of the migrants are men. 15 per cent are women and 13 per cent are children. 58% of swedes and 75% of Brits want to decrease immigration. Mass immigration to Europe must end. |
20 | 84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00005-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: "For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. " I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an "average, healthy person. " Average is defined as "typical; common; ordinary" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the "average person" that I was referring to. Also the word "you" can be defined as "one; anyone; people in general" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified "you" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc" because in R1 he says "I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. " Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a "drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise. |
14 | 94f0819e-2019-04-18T18:14:06Z-00008-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural I think homosexuality is completely natural. I originally thought that the title was 'Homosexuality is a choice, not natural' and clicked on it. I'm not sure what I should do now, because there's absolutely no way to argue that it isn't natural. Can we just finish the rounds and let it be a tie? I honestly don't want to lose points over something I agree with you on. I'm very sorry I messed up your debate like this. Truly! |
5 | 2a1eb77c-2019-04-18T18:26:32Z-00005-000 | Should social security be privatized? | We shall abolish Social Security and replace it with R.E.I.A.G I will be arguing that we can successfully abolish and replace Social Security with R.E.I.A.G while Con will be arguing that my plan is load of rubbish. I have skipped the acceptance round so that Con gets a good idea of what he is arguing against. My plan IS changeable; meaning it can alter it to become workable again after being shown a flaw by con. The only things that are not changeable isI)Everybody must be able to retire by 60II)It must abolish Social Security and not become another form of it. III) Everybody that is 18 must be able to enroll in it starting in 20__.Introductory ParagraphThe U.S. spends nearly 725,000 dollars a year on social security, or around 20% of the federal budget. It is humungous pressure for the U.S. to continue this program and burns a huge hole in our deficit. Even so, nobody really wants to take this money away from the elderly, but nobody wants us to pay this huge sum of money. So genius me thought up of a plan that meets both of the above criteria and does much more. I have named the plan humbly after myself and call it R.E. Is A Genius (R.E.I.A.G). It works like this.1.) Each individual who turns eighteen starting in 20__ will receive Government investment accounts with 12,000 dollars.Since there are approximately 540,000 people who will turn eighteen in 20__, then nearly 54 Billion dollars will be needed to fund all these accounts. Either the 12,000 will come from the Government or from taxes.2.) The 54 billion dollars would all be invested in the U.S. stock markets and would be divided equally among stocks. The money would be controlled by massive hedge funds regulated by the Government.3.) Every person that reaches the age of 60 will have a total of 711,000(inflation adjusted) dollars in their Government investment account. They will be paid 54,000 annually from then on until their death. Upon the person's death, 711,000 dollars worth of stocks will be sold from the massive hedge funds and the money made will be given to the family or whoever the person dead designates to. My math explainedI got 540,000 eighteen year olds from taking the total number of 18-24 year olds In the U.S. and dividing it by six. 27000000/6=4500000, 4500000*12000= 54 Billion dollarsAverage stock growth per year is 10% (1)Average dividend yield is 3% (2)Average Inflation is 3.2% (3)10%+3%-3.2%=9.76%. Every year, each Government investment account will grow by 9.76%. Over the course of 42 years, this will be equal to 711,000. The calculations can be made on the website in link (4), just put in 12,000 for the initial amount with a 9.76% interest rate for 42 years.ConclusionThis will successfully abolish Social Security, strengthen the U.S. stock market, and essentially lower the wealth gap between the social classes. Side notePlease do not take this debate if this you're not willing to research or take time to do this debate. I'm looking to do a good debate, not to get trolled. So does anybody dare challenge me? (1)http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...(3) http://inflationdata.com...(4) http://www.daveramsey.com... |
27 | 5f5df93c-2019-04-18T17:17:11Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S. There is a fundamental right to self-defense I cited the American founders, Jefferson's "No [citizen] shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands...." I acknowledged "the right of self-defense is not absolute" and pointed to the Supreme Court's decision that while the right to defend one's home could not be infringed, there could be gun free zones elsewhere. Con said that Locke derived the right of self-defense from a right to liberty, which is fine with me. Con then dropped discussion of rights, saying I had conceded something. I didn't. We are talking about defense of one's home and family. It is not a question of weighing the harm that might be dealt to the person breaking and entering against the harm the criminal might do to you and your family. The right of self-defense takes precedence. Con pronounces the castle doctrine immoral. I suspect he misunderstands the doctrine. In all cases of self defense, both in the home and outside of it, a jury must decide that the person using lethal force reasonably believed he was under threat of great bodily harm. The castle doctrine says that there is a legal presumption that if a criminal breaks into your home – not wanders in because you left the door open – that there is a reasonable presumption of threat of harm. The presumption can still be overcome. If the person breaking and entering is reasonably identified as posing no threat, then the presumption is overcome. For example, if its a sunny day and the homeowner sees that the person breaking and entering is an unarmed child, then use of potentially lethal force is unreasonable. The doctrine only has effect when there is doubt, as with an unidentified break-in at night. The castle doctrine is a fine point of law. Some states have it and some do not. The resolution is whether there are any circumstances when a homeowner should be allowed to legally possess a gun for self-defense. Guns are the only practical means of self-defense One might argue that while there is a right to self-defense, that guns could be banned in favor of some other means of self-defense. I argued that there is now no practical alternative to guns. That's what the Supreme Court ruled in the Washington DC case that voided the District's prohibition on guns. Con did not contest this point, and did not offer any alternative effective means of self-defense. I believe that once Con grants a fundamental right to self-defense and further grants that guns are the only realistic means of self-defense, then the resolution is affirmed. You cannot have a right to self-defense and then ban the only means of asserting the right. It would be like affirming a right to free speech while denying all use of communications media. Con seems to recognize this situation. At the end of the last round he didn't assert that all guns should be illegal for home defense, but rather only asserted that there ought to be more restrictions. I will continue with the practical arguments, although they cannot deny the resolution. The benefits of guns outweigh the disadvantages Con dropped my arguments that banning guns would have a negligible effect on suicide rates. Japan has twice the suicide rate with a strict gun ban, and the suicide rate in Washington DC was unchanged by a gun ban. Con dropped my argument that accidental deaths from guns are way below the levels of other hazards that are not banned. Con argued a fundamental right was inconsistent with background checks and safety training. I argued that minimal restrictions can be placed upon fundamental rights, so long as they are not a significant impediment to practicing the right. That's true of all fundamental rights. However, the resolution is to completely abolish the right by making self-defense illegal. Illegality would not eliminate guns In the last round, Con argued that he if guns are made illegal in the US they will not be available illegally. He cites evidence that guns have became scarce in the UK and Japan after being made illegal, so he imagines that might be the case in the US as well. He did not respond to my previous argument that drugs have been made illegal in the U.S. and despite vigorous attempts at enforcement there are plenty of illegal drugs available. Nations differ in the forces of cultural and tradition at work. Drugs are illegal in Japan, and sure enough there are few illegal drugs available illegally there. Not so in the US. I pointed out that drugs are an easier problem in the sense that a continuous supply is required, while guns are durable. During the civil war in Northern Ireland, large numbers of illegal arms were smuggled into the U.K., despite vigorous enforcement attempts. It cannot therefore be the case that enforcement is easy. The problem has to with what the society as a whole wants and tolerates. Con argues that in the US most guns ultimately come from legal sources. Even if broadly banned in the U.S, most guns would still ultimately derive from legal sources. Russia and South Africa are two sources of export, for example, and guns are not hard to get in Canada. Our debate is about guns for home defense. The probability of total gun ban in the U.S. is zero because hunting is so common, and so is use for protection from animals. People hunt for basic food in Alaska, parts of the northern Rockies, and in the rural South. In Alaska, people carry a 45 pistol to go to the bathroom – the bathroom being an outhouse and Alaska having 50,000 bears. In my area in California, a man shot a mountain lion perched in a tree above a school bus stop; the event merited only a single paragraph in the local paper. There are now about 300 million legal guns in the U.S., and with most unlicensed there is no prospect of rounding them up. Studies show effective deterrence The data I cited on defensive use of firearms was prepared by the Center for Disease Control at the request of President Obama. There have been more than a dozen studies of the use of weapons for self-defense, and the CDC concluded that defensive use, mostly to scare off criminals, vastly out numbered offensive use. The CDC study is likely because the CDC is expert in statistical analysis, has no apparent prejudices, and looked at all of the surveys done in the field. If they do have a bias, it would likely be an anti-gun bias in trying to please a liberal president. Con did not address the CDC study. Con cites criticism the DGU. I have no idea what that is. The criticism is that more rapes are claimed to be deterred than were reported in a separate crime victims study. Many of these surveys depend upon just how questions are asked. A deterred rapes may be significantly under reported in a victims survey. Con cites Kellerman. The study compares the rare event of a self-defense shooting in the home with more common events like suicides. [19. http://tinyurl.com...] There were only seven cases of self-defense shootings in the study, so the ratios are misleading. The study shows that citizens are careful, and that guns are usually used to scare off criminals rather than shoot them. Con cites Cheng and Hoekstra. That paper confuses castle doctrine laws with stand-your-ground laws and mixes data from non-confrontational crimes unlikely to be affected. "Cheng and Hoekstra suggested these laws affect crime rates. If true, the data show adopting all three "castle doctrine" laws causes a noticeable decrease in violent crime. " [20. http://tinyurl.com... ] Con charges that gun ownership is a "crutch, or even a fetish." No it's just cultural. Shooting is the national sport of Switzerland. About 30% of Swiss households have guns, compared to about 42% in the U.S. The Swiss have far more fully automatic weapons. They openly carry guns to the various shooting festivals and consider it a sign of wholesome living. [21. http://tinyurl.com...] They have a non-violent society. Guns do not cause violence. ------- Con may not introduce new arguments or evidence in his final round. [DR 4] |
38 | 174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00002-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Thanks to my opponent for his rebuttal. REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS ------------ 1) //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.// And that is the user's choice. None of these other 'hazardous' chemicals have ever been proved to be harmful whatsoever. I ask my opponent to source his claims to relevant studies. 2) //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.// There are some very serious problems with my opponent's arguments. (S)He has refused to show how studies contradict his statement. In 1980, when Marinol was released, there were six State-sponsored studies running alongside the distribution of the drug. All of the studies had conclusive evidence, namely the thousands of patients who participated in the studies, that naturally grown marijuana was safer, and more effective than Marinol. (1) One study had a subject accuse his/her doctor of trying to poison him. This patient was one of the experimental trials for Marinol, not marijuana. Might I also add that tobacco and alcohol, while infinitely more harmful to the user than marijuana, are still legal? Why should marijuana be illegal, when it actually provides benefits to the user? 3) //Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? No, they don't. However, as noted in my fifth and sixth arguments, which you tried to hide away, I noted that it was the user's choice, and that the government should have no say in what you can and cannot consume. If you want to eat very greasy food, go right ahead. If you want to smoke marijuana or inject yourself with heroin, go ahead. And if you want to consume rat poison for breakfast, who am I to stop you? 4) //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.// Your point? Opium and heroin ought to be legal for the simple reason that it is not the government's role to tell you what to consume. If it is harmful, then the consequences are upon you, and you alone. 5) //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.// This wouldn't be a proper replacement for marijuana at all. The criminals would only get harder to catch, and the citations wouldn't be as nearly as good a revenue as it would should marijuana be legalized and taxed. 6) //This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc...// Cite sources. Marijuana -may- cause the user to have those symptoms. Anyways, just because marijuana makes you hungry, lazy, or paranoid, this makes the drug so bad it needs to be illegal? That's just inane. And stupid. 7) //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.// So, because marijuana may cause someone to be hungry, they will automatically become obese. This assumes that the user smokes marijuana 24/7, and becomes hungry while using it. And then you randomly say, '..IF the user can get food.' What does that even mean? That smoking marijuana will cause you to either become obese, or suddenly become unable to purchase food? That's just foolish. What's with the last statement, anyways? If ANYONE can't consume edible food within a certain amount of time, they will die. That's just common sense, and applies to everything, really. 8) //Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse.// Let's put your argument into a syllogism. P1: Marijuana may make you lazy (not evidenced). P2: If someone consumes marijuana, they WILL be lazy. (False.) Conclusion: Consuming marijuana will make the recession worse. (Non-sequitur, and just a point blank wtf.) Obviously, I need not say anything else. 9) //Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others// Okay.. //causing them to go insane// Losing trust makes you go insane. What? //and crime rate may possibly go up and Going insane ups the crime rate. Why? //thus, this would do harm to others.// More crime= More harm to others. Somehow. All of this argument is a big non-sequitur chain of fail. Voters, take note that my opponent dropped contention 6. REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENT ------------------------------- 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. Not negative. Even if it is, it is the user's choice to use said drug. //Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine,// Have you ever heard of an anti-depressant? //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?// Of course! If you have the facts available to you on what the drug does, then you can consume it no matter what! The government ought not control what you ingest.// //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, This argument doesn't even make sense. It's missing lots and lots of words to make it work. //nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place.// The use you are describing is called an anti-depressant. Marijuana is an anti-depressant. Look at that, it does fall under the concept of medical marijuana. 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.// Disproved that one a while ago. Anyways, legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates. 3) //It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. // How? //Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick,/ Yes, it does. Multiple studies demonstrating that it does. //while simultaneously harming society as a whole.// How? Show me. It is beneficial in health, helps the economy, and lowers crime rate. 4) //Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana.// I call bullsh!t.(1)(2) Thanks to my opponent, and now I turn the debate over to him. SOURCES ----------- http://www.letfreedomgrow.com... (1) http://dying.about.com... (2) |
2 | 497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. I'll start by highlighting why nicotine is a beneficial component of e-cigarettes and then finish with reasons why e-cigarettes are a healthier 'alternative' than marijuana. But first I will point out that young people are susceptible to copying most things they see older people doing regardless of what it is. Also the fact that e-cigarettes are not subject to tobacco laws doesn't really do much in terms of preventing young people from getting them. If a child or teenager wants something they'll find a way to get it. The large amount of underage smokers and drinkers in the US and UK would be an example of this. It's natural that an e-cigarette would contain nicotine; they're tailored towards smokers. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are either former cigarette smokers or people who are trying to quit smoking; in addition there is little evidence to suggest that non-smokers take up e-cigarettes. Now, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using marijuana as an alternative there is a relatively high chance that they would relapse back to smoking tobacco once again. A tobacco smoker may not even give up tobacco even if they were to begin smoking marijuana thus becoming a "dual user" i.e. they would smoke both tobacco and marijuana. The latter point in itself would defeat the object of marijuana being used as an alternative (since the negative effects of the tobacco smoke would negate any positive effects marijuana presents). On the other hand, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using e-cigarettes as an alternative the chances of a relapse are relatively low. A study showed that among former smokers who were regular used e-cigarettes, only 6% relapsed back to tobacco after a year. More importantly, among the "dual users", an amazing 46% quit smoking after a year. So actually it's the fact that e-cigarettes contain nicotine that makes it a healthier alternative than marijuana. This is because switching to a non-nicotine alternative would most likely lead to nicotine withdrawal and the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include a series of negative effects: - feeling irritable - feeling or being aggressive - dysphoria - restlessness - poor concentration - increased appetite - weight gain - urges or cravings to smoke - night-time awakenings/sleep disturbance - decreased heart rate Thus by using e-cigarettes one still receives their 'nicotine fix' without the added negative effects that comes with tobacco smoke. A final point is to address the fact that nicotine is not a carcinogen. This means that it does not cause cancer. So the chances of a person acquiring cancer, of any sort, from smoking an e-cigarette would be the same, if not less, than smoking marijuana. Sources: http://alcoholism.about.com... http://www.mhra.gov.uk... http://acsh.org... http://www.nicoventures.co.uk... |
12 | b1868cc5-2019-04-18T14:11:15Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Abortion I said that it is against the law to kill a person, not an animal. It is important to be clear by what is meant by abortion in today's context. Abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, at any time from conception to birth. Incomplete abortion: Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. Numerous scientific studies spanning fifty years have documented a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Blood clots can also happen and infection. The womb itself can also be damaged while aborting a baby. While the womb is bleeding out, you absolutely have to avoid sleeping with someone so it can't affect the wombs regeneration. The bleeding can go on for weeks and there is severe pain. This one sounds really painful: Cut or torn cervix: The opening of the uterus torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. Perforation of the uterus wall: A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery is required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases hysterectomy may be required. Anesthesia-related complications: As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. There are also long term risks: Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies. LONG-TERM MEDICAL RISKS These are immediate side effects of Abortion: Pain and/or cramping Nausea Vomiting Diarrhea Reaction to anesthetic Headache Dizziness Fever and chills Women may also be very depressed and want to commit suicide after abortion. The woman can also have emotional responses after or while having an abortion. You (plural women who are aborting) may experience a number of different feelings and emotions. Abortion costs up to $800 and there are also other costs for the aftereffects, breast cancer and long term effects. Other immediate consequence of abortion is the risk of damaging a woman's ability to have children. Also: - Denial and repression of emotions. - Avoidance patterns which can lead to isolation. - Emotional numbness. - Violence or aggression towards themselves or others. - Psychosomatic symptoms " bodily signs of continuing stress: 1. Sleep problems " insomnia, nightmares, and "hearing" a baby crying. 2. Back pain, abdominal cramps, and skin irritations, non-hormonal PMT. 3. Sexual difficulties " cervical pain, frigidity etc. 4. Eating disorders "excessive weight gain or loss, anorexia, bulimia. 5. Trouble with relationships and intimacy in general. 6. Self-punishing and self-degrading behaviors (promiscuity, entering abusive relationships, becoming accident-prone). 7. Preoccupation with the abortion child, resulting in anniversary reactions- stress, tension, etc. 8. Many women suffer from depression, turn to drugs or alcohol, and have recurring thoughts of suicide. 9. "Trauma" because an unborn baby has been destroyed. There is no doubt that a psychological price is paid. The trauma can sink into the woman's unconscious and it is not harmless and casual. Not only that but research has shown the negative effect the abortion had on the behavior of children of mothers who had abortions. Synopsis: Be aware of what women have to go through after abortion. There are lots of other websites, that have other information about the consequences or after effects of abortion on the internet. familyandlife.org , contracept.org , louisiana.gov , nhs.uk |
37 | 1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell phones in school School Cell Phone Ban Causes Uproar February 11, 2009 6:30 PM CBSNEWS http://www.cbsnews.com... "My mother, she needs me to have the cell to call me and check up on me," said Steven Cao, 16, a sophomore who lives in Staten Island and attends Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan. He called the ban stupid. Some parents would prefer a policy that lets students have cell phones but prohibits their use in classes. Students insist that most classmates use their cell phones responsibly, and they brush off criticism that previous generations got along fine without them. "It's kind of ridiculous that we think we can't survive without a cell phone when people did it for thousands of years," said Elisa Muyl, 14, a freshman at Stuyvesant. "But now that they have this invention, we should use it." Cell phones in schools http://www.cellutips.com... The Good Feeling of security – Knowing that your children are reachable anytime is quite reassuring for a parent, especially after events such as the Columbine shooting and the September 11th tragedy. It brings families together – Families don't seem to have much time to spend together anymore. With overtime and after-school activities, having the ability to communicate with any one of your family member helps bringing families together. Cellphones are convenient – Everybody is more busy nowadays. Students are involved in activities after school, and practices and meeting time tend to vary a lot. It is very convenient for a student who does not have access to public transportation to call their parents for a ride when they need one. Morgan Warner |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00006-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned 1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the "harmful" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as "wasting" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs.... |
24 | 5bd759df-2019-04-18T11:12:13Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least the top tax rate in the 1950s was 90%%%%%%% 90 percent okay 90 % tax rates have very little effect on the growth rate of an economy, During hitlers time the german economy was very good but at what cost? trump is the same we do have a good economy but it was a good economy before under obama for 6 straight years, He had that to build on. If you look back in time the middle classes did better in the usa when taxes on the rich were high, Now all the money goes just to the rich, And they don't deserv it, Plenty of poor people work very hard and get nothing, Many rich don't work at all yet get all, No more! No more, We need to be like sweden and germany make taxes higher to procde services for the midle classes and poor, To hell with the rich, They can pay their taxes or face the guillotine! |
20 | 349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk |
45 | 953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00004-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals. |
6 | b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Being successful in life is easier with a college education. I extend all of my original arguments and following arguments as my opponent has forfeited the round. |
7 | 247fdd93-2019-04-18T19:15:27Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | death sentence to criminal legal or illegal I am confussed, the basis I am working off is poor, so I am just assuming that I am against the death sentence. The death sentence should not be in practice because the law has sentance many men and woman who have not commited a crime to death, which is unjust. The only solution for this is to not allow the practice of the death sentence to be carried out. Instead only inprisonment should be carried out, for at least it would make the standards of men more just. |
32 | c0900fa2-2019-04-18T13:00:22Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Mandatory Voting Many thanks to missbailey8 for her superb opening statements. Without further ado, here are my rebuttals. I. Uninformed Public As I argued in the previous round, making voting mandatory could actually lead to an increase of public knowledge and awareness of political issues. Con also begs the question. What exactly is an uninformed voter and how much knowledge should one need to know before casting a ballot? What amount of knowledge, and on what issues, does one have to have before becoming "informed"? Exclusionary elitism has no place in democracy. Con cites a quiz given by Just Facts. The problem with their organization is that they are often heavily bias. For example, on abortion, they write:"False arguments aside, the vast weight of scientific evidence indicates that preborn humans can feel pain by 20 weeks or earlier. While this does not rise to the level of 100% certainty, it rests upon factually solid ground." (1) Unfortunately, the fetal pain is a lie and is totally bunk science as Lee et al. write (2): "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures." They also admit that their viewpoint is more towards the conservative side (3). Finally, it is arguable that we are all misinformed about some issues. Grigory Graborenko writes (4): "The truth is, even with the best intentions, any individual has a vast number of blind spots. How can a leader tell the difference between a policy that is unpopular because the people are too stupid to understand why it's necessary, and a policy that is genuinely awful? We are told that our politicians are wise, experienced, and clever, and that making "hard choices" is the sign of true leadership." So once again, we are left begging the question. What/who is an uninformed voter and how much knowledge does one need until they are properly "informed"? II. Freedom of Speech Con argues that requiring people to vote violates the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech. Conceding for a moment that this is true, we could simply amend the U.S. Constitution to permit and require voting. Next, the debate is not necessarily about mandatory voting in the U.S., but rather democratic societies in general. But the more serious issue is that it is not so clear whether or not it does violate the U.S. Constitution. A note in Harvard Law Review notes (5): "[C]ompulsory voting is a legitimate infringement upon individual liberty for the purpose of ensuring that political outcomes reflect the preferences of the electorate...the very idea that a right, by definition, can be waived is false. Numerous rights cannot be waived; and, although many others can, this still does not imply the general existence of inverse rights. The Supreme Court observed this in Singer v. United States, in which it upheld a federal rule that requires government consent in order for a criminal defendant to waive his right to a jury trial. The Court declared that "[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right," and cited several examples of this principle in the context of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights: the right to a public trial, the right to be tried in the state and district where the crime was committed, and the right to confront the government's witnesses." "The reason that a right does not imply its inverse is that there are competing interests at stake. An individual right may serve both a public and a private interest, and creating an absolute individual right of waiver would leave unprotected the public interest that the right serves. The right to trial by jury is a protection of the individual from the power of the state, but it also serves an important collective function by promoting the accuracy and legitimacy of criminal trials there is no inverse right to a bench trial because this would focus only on the individual interest and would ignore the collective interest. Similarly, the collective interest in having open trials prevents a defendant from turning his right to a public trial into the inverse right to a private trial." III. Universal Declaration of Human Rights This is perhaps con's most far-fetched contention. As I argued above, the rights do not necessarily mean that there is a negative right associated with it. I would contend that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights absolutely supports mandatory voting. Article 22 states (6): (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. The third one is the one that is most relevant. As I argued in round 1, democracy requires the consent of the people. The way to ensure that you have the consent of the people, is to ensure that all eligible members of the population vote. Finally, this contention is absolutely ridiculous because there are more than 20 countries that make voting mandatory (7). Should mandatory voting actually violate human rights, the UN would almost certainly have spoken out against it by now. We simply do not see this happening. Conclusion Compulsory voting is much needed for Democratic societies. By making it mandatory, we are affirming that we have the consent of the governed. Over to con! SOURCES 1. http://www.justfactsdaily.com...;2. http://jama.jamanetwork.com...;3. http://www.justfacts.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...;5. http://harvardlawreview.org...;6. http://www.un.org...;7. http://www.pbs.org...; |
8 | 20a83604-2019-04-18T18:11:33Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Based on current evidence we can conclude abortion lowers crime It seems my opponent has misunderstood my argument (though that is more of my fault than his). 1)I am not against using empirical analysis. I was merely pointing out that the common thing to do in my situation would be to simply point out aggregate crime statistics in the Country after Roe v. Wade and conclude the correlation = causation fallacy. I tried to go a different route, but now I will also use various statistical arguments to point out the abortion crime effect, which brings me to 2)My first argument had nothing to do with the abortion crime effect but rather abortion itself. It is important to note that crime does not have to be witnessed or caught to be considered crime, which is the inherent flaw of criminal statistics: they cannot point out crimes that were never found out. An example would be drug use. Every time someone uses an illegal drug, that is one count of a crime and multiple uses would be multiple breakings of the same law, and thus multiple counts regardless of whether they were caught. This is something that can be quite difficult to measure. Another flaw in his analysis is that my opponent asserts that because of its legality, there are more abortions occurring than if it were illegal, which I would agree with. Measuring the crime of potential lives is drastically harder than even finding how many uncaught illegal abortions occurred before Roe v. Wade so I will assume that unborn children have no effect on the crime rate for argument's sake. The core of my argument, then, will be the effect of legalization on the increase in abortions. If I can somewhat prove that the number of women who will have an abortion regardless of legality is more than the increase in crime that may result from legal abortion (which could even be zero), then logically I would prove that overall there would be less crime from legal abortion. According to most statistics I could find, such as this one [1], about 42-46 million abortions occur worldwide and about 20 million of those are estimated to come from countries were abortion is illegal. The earliest abortion statistics I could find were from 2008, when 1.21 million abortions took place [2]. When considering the amount of abortions that take place in illegal countries, it is not a stretch to say that at least 40% of those abortions would still take place criminally, or 484,000, if abortion were outlawed in the U.S. Thus, my opponent needs to prove the abortion crime effect in his favor, that it increases crime, to win the debate. At the very end of his last round he made this claim, so if he shows the numbers, this should not be hard for him. If he cannot somehow correlate 484,001 crimes to the legalization of abortion, than this would prove that the illegalization of abortion increases crime, since all those women getting illegal abortions would count as crime, which is merely stating the resolution in the negative. It would still be a pro win. Now, I am sure that con will merely deny my first statistic as biased or exaggerated or ridiculous hypotheticals, however this will still not deny the logic of my case that many abortions would still occur even if it were outlawed and would all be considered increases in crime, most likely uncaught crime. He could offer a much lower number of illegal abortions that would occur than mine, but he would still need to prove the abortion crime effect in his favor. So far, the only thing my opponent has statistically proven is that illegalized abortion may have led to a slight increase in murder (7%). In terms of criminal counts, this would result in maybe 200 or 300 extra counts. The resolution says nothing about severity: if legalized abortion directly led to 10,000 more murders and 100,000 less thefts, it would still have technically decreased crime. So to negate the resolution, in the negative, he must find approximately 500,000 cases of crime due to abortion to win. 3)Now I will use the abortion crime rate in my favor to scientifically prove the crime lowering effects of legalized abortion. This argument is completely different from the first and to win, my opponent must negate both arguments. If just one of the two stand, Pro would be the winner. In response to his critics, Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics, wrote an article in 2005 affirming his findings. One of these findings was that states with higher abortion rates had declined faster in crime then states with low abortion rates [3]. He also states that other countries, such as Australia, Canada and Romania, also experienced a decrease in crime after the legalization. While there are plenty of other factors that account for crime rate, these show that abortion at least had some effect, even if minor, and worked towards reducing crime. Now for rebuttals: 1)Abortion leads to many societal effects: My opponent's study tries to point out various negative social effects that have resulted from abortion. I do not deny that abortion has some negative social effects. The issue, however, is whether these societal effects affect crime, which is the variable upon which the entire resolution is based. I am not arguing the ethics of abortion, but its effect on crime. Another factor my opponent has not accounted for is how many of these societal problems are due to abortion rather than American culture. For instance, he cites a drastic increase in out of wedlock births. Yet the only link he gives to crime is a slight increase in murder of 7% (I was unable to access the first source so I could be wrong). Yet I have already shown that crime decreased faster in states with higher rates of abortion. Conclusion: I hope this posting cleared some confusion from my last one and that it helps further this beneficial and informative debate. In a nutshell, my two arguments are: 1.Abortion rates are not that different in countries where it is illegal [1], and illegalizing abortion would surely increase crime (proving my resolution in the negative), as at least a quarter to half of those women would likely seek abortions illegally. This is not to be confused with the abortion crime effect. 2.States with more abortions saw faster decreases in crime than states with fewer abortions and other countries with legalized abortion saw similar decreases in crime [3]. Sources: [1] http://www.womenscenter.com... [2] http://www.abort73.com... [3] http://www.freakonomics.com... |
9 | 5c9a979e-2019-04-18T16:38:01Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate Pro's arguments from ignorance continue, even when he is posting his concluding remarks. For example: His argument that he can legally post his flag all over the back of his pickup truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. The question isn't one of legality (clearly if the school board condemns an act - it's not legal), nor if pickup trucks should be bedecked with racist propaganda. The issue at hand, the very issue my opponent raised (and apparently forgot) is whether or not confederate flags should fly on school property. I have already raised every concern which one reasonably can, and I'd like to chime in that my opponent clearly knew them before the start of this debate. I will restate my basic premise one more time: Freedom of speech isn't absolute. There are many, many things which will get you thrown out of campus, expelled, and possibly jailed. For example: Stating what one would do to another student with their shotgun, these days would at a bare minimum get you banned from campus for life, and possibly land you a nice vacation at the local county jail for a few weeks. The idea that one's personal version of "heritage" somehow trumps the history of racism, race violence, and segregation - all of which are represented by the confederate flag - is absolutely ludicrous. If we were to follow my opponent's advice, there would be absolutely no limitations on anything anyone can wear, say, do, to each other in full view of every classmate, teacher, and parent. And believe me - there are plenty of "funny" things to choose from: Sexism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on. The fact is, every school has a dress code. Every school has a code of conduct. Every school places a minimum required level of civility in front of every student. If you can't follow it, stay out. Schools time and time again have shown that they can (legally) permanently expel students for breaking this social contract. And we all know that this is necessary. People like my opponent would show up with flags one day, offensive T-Shirts the next, combat boots and shaved heads the day after that, printed images of bombs strapped to their bodies the day after that, and by Friday the entire school would be reduced to a campus of fist fights, lawsuits, and PTA meetings. The primary goal of school is education. Unfortunately for my opponent, making a mockery of 150 years of slavery, segregation, and racial unrest by calling it "heritage" isn't going to make that possible. Vote what you know is right - VOTE CON. It's common sense, and common decency. |
29 | bd2d1f0f-2019-04-18T19:44:29Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | illegal immigrants It's an interesting topic; although I must warn you to be wary of your statements that could be percieved as racist. "Everyone is always stating, How Illegals are a problem, The only problem is the Mouths it is coming from, if everyone would just mind their own business, and leave Hispancs alone. .. this would be a better place to live" That is quite untrue, illegal immigrants increase taxes for Americans contributing to the ever growing American deficit and to American homelessness. Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the government and receive back a wide variety of services and benefits. A fiscal deficit occurs when the benefits and services received by one group exceed the taxes paid. When such a deficit occurs, other groups must pay for the services and benefits of the group in deficit. Each year, govern-ment is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups. (1) Here are statistics on the views of illegal immigrants on different groups (2): Almost all Americans (90 percent) say illegal immigration is a "very" serious (60 percent) or "somewhat" serious (30 percent) problem for the country today — essentially unchanged from a year ago this time. Republicans (65 percent) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (58 percent) to say illegal immigration is a "very" serious problem, and Americans over age 65 are significantly more likely than those under age 30 to think so (71 percent and 46 percent respectively). How do Americans want to deal with illegal immigrants? Large majorities favor increasing the number of border patrol agents (80 percent) and imposing fines and criminal charges against employers who hire illegals (73 percent). By eight-to-one, Americans think it is unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while thousands of people wait each year to come to the United States legally. Fully 86 percent of Republicans think it is unfair, as do 77 percent of Democrats. Immigration reforms (3): There are two camps in immigration reform; the enforcement camp, which worries that illegal immigration threatens the peace of the nation and its laws, and the guest-worker camp, who worry that without these immigrants our prosperity will be at risk. But in reality, the goals of the two camps are complementary, not contradictory: With a legal path to work comes secure borders, and with secure borders comes economic prosperity. To protect America from terrorism, drug trafficking and lawlessness, those in favor of an enforcement-only approach propose massive increases in funding for border control to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the U. S. -Mexico border. It is imperative, they argue, to regain control of the border, and with good reason. In 2005, Customs and Border Patrol stopped 1,189,114 people from illegally crossing the border, including more tha n 200 from Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. There are also an astounding amount of other problems caused by illegal immigrants, here are some statistics (4): Illegal immigrants in America: 21,511,415 OTM (Other than Mexico) illegal immigrants in America: 535,484 Money wired to Mexico since January 2006: $29,657,318,494 Money wired to Latin America since 2001: $262,185,629,117 Cost of Social Services for Illegal Immigrants since 1996: $397,456,108,652 Children of illegal immigrants in public schools: 4,345,861 Cost of children of illegal immigrants in K-12 since 1996: $14,188,462,809 Illegal immigrants incarcerated: 364,263 Cost of incarcerations since 2001: $1,412,188,851 Illegal Immigrant fugitives: 677,987 Anchor Babies (definition below) since 2002: 1,979,211 Skilled jobs taken by illegal immigrants: 10,488,633 An Anchor baby is a baby born of illegal immigrant parents; this is significant because babies born on United States soil are citizens (whether or not they are of illegal descent). If an automatic "path to citizenship" (i. e. , Amnesty) is offered, government leaders will quickly realize there are significantly more than 10-11 million in the country--in fact, there are more than 20 million. This would also be an offense to the millions of honest immigrants who have become citizens through the established legal process. The opportunity to live and work in America must remain an invited and controlled privilege, not to be gained by backdoor tactics. (4) "but what is going to end up happening, the illegals are going to be forced to go back, and everyone will wish they were here again. " I'd like to argue that because of the growing national deficit that it is imperative that we deport illegal immigrants; they are taking jobs and money from the United States economy, leading to an economic decline. This economic decline leads to structural violence (Due to the United States' inability to pay for our basic needs because of a budget deficit caused by illegal immigrants and the Social Security of the Baby Boomers). 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence compared with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. A hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U. S. and the U. S. S. R (232 million) cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. (5) The threat of illegal immigrants grows bigger the longer it is left untouched (As you suggested), if we were to follow through with your plan we would end up facing poverty and war. "THEY ARE HARD WORKERS, GREAT PROVIDERS FOR THEIR FAMILIES! MOST WHITE AND BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T SAY THE SAME THINGS ABOUT THEMSELVES HISPANICS TAKE THE SLACK FOR WHAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT. 50% OF AMERICANS START SOMETHING THAT 100% OF HIPANICS FINISH" Although I do agree that Hispanics are hard workers, I would like to inform you that the argument is on illegal immigrants. Although, I must remind you that illegal immigrants have taken nearly 10.5 million skilled jobs from American citizens; are you suggesting that these are unwanted jobs? Your argument on the United States' land previously being part of Mexico is irrelevant. You restate that the United States should discontinue (or never have started) their pursuit of deportation of illegal immigrants in which I must remind you of the massive amounts of debt they cause American citizens which could bring the United States' decline invariably. "I can't believe that this is happening, but I should because it is only the BIBLE fullfilling, everyone is growing weary, and becoming evil. .. ." On the above statement, I would like to introduce the amount of foreign aid America gives (much larger than most other countries) (6): The US being the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation, it is worth seeing how their actions or inaction affect other nations. One notable area is US foreign aid. Being a major part of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and even helping to formulate the United Nations over 50 years ago, their actions can be felt around the world. The following statement is written on other country's foreign aid programs (6): Even though these targets and agendas have been set, year after year almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target $100 billion. Whoops, i've run out of room! I'll cite in the commentary. |
40 | e03e76bf-2019-04-18T15:43:08Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should be Abolished! Thanks, 9space. It's been fun. I will now proceed to finish off what's left of your arguments ^_^ CA1: Justice Pro basically concedes this argument. He only provides a broken link which supposedly shows that LWOP convicts commit suicide. Even if this is true (which we have no basis for believing), it would not adequately address my rebuttal, because if death was really preferable to life in prison, the *vast majority* of people with long-term prison sentences would commit suicide, which even Pro doesn't claim his source shows. I have, indeed, demonstrated that death is the ultimate punishment. This contention *alone* wins me the debate-- if the purpose of the justice system is to serve justice, and the death penalty is necessary to serve justice, then the death penalty is necessary and cannot be abolished. The resolution is negated. CA2: Cost Pro totally ignores my initial and most crucial rebuttal to this argument: that no monetary value can be placed on justice. If someone deserves to die (which my opponent has conceded does happen) then they should die-- the cost of administering that necessary punishment is irrelevant. By failing to address this point, Pro has already lost this contention. As for his response to my secondary rebuttal regarding the savings obtained from plea bargaining, his only substantial point is that judges might abuse plea-bargaining to increase their 'guilty plea rates', but this is patently false because the death penalty IS legal as of now and plea-bargaining IS widely used, yet no such notable trend actually exists. Pro cannot claim that "X policy would result in Y" if X policy has already been enacted and does not result in Y at all. .. CA3: Innocents Pro's rebuttal here makes no sense and misses all the most damaging parts of my rebuttal. Not only does he fail to address my point about the hugely increased accuracy rate of forensic investigations, but he also neglects to actually provide examples of postmortem exonerations occurring in modern times to back up his assertion that the execution of innocents is an inevitable result of the DP. All he does is give an incoherent mess of a rebuttal (I literally have no idea what he is trying to say) to my less vital point regarding how it is more probable that there are probably some innocent people that have died in prison. CA4: Discrimination Pro attempts to argue that the irreversible nature of the death penalty makes cases of unfair racism-based sentences more damaging, since those who have been imprisoned can still make appeals. However, this actually serves as a plus point for the death penalty because the numerous appeals involved in any death penalty sentence greatly minimizes the chance of such racially biased judgments actually being administered. And anyways, one could argue that other punishments are similarly irreversible because if the court that passed the unfair sentence is racially biased, then it is highly unlikely that the sentence will change upon appeal. CA5: Deaths Conceded. CA6: Cheap Labor Once again, Pro neglects to address the main defeater of this argument: that justice should be served regardless of the potential benefits that could be reaped otherwise. But besides that, Pro largely misses the point of my ethics-centered rebuttal; the point is that taking advantage of a convict's lack of rights and virtually enslaving them for cheap labor goes far beyond what the state is empowered to do, which is simply to serve justice-- there is a significant difference between stripping someone of their rights in order to serve justice, and taking advantage of someone who has had their rights stripped for material gain. CA7: Majority Rule Pro drops his original contention about religion, shifting the focus to trying to show that the American public as a whole is against the death penalty. Firstly, I will note that information from an unaffiliated source such as Gallup Polls should be regarded more highly than information from an organization which specifically aims to collect anti-DP statistics such as the Death Penalty Information Center. Pro has done nothing to convince us that we should accept his statistics over mine, which clearly show American popular support *for* the death penalty. Secondly, even according to his own source, there is only a 6% difference between those who support LWOP and those who support the DP, which can hardly be considered grounds for rejecting the death penalty on its own-- it is more or less insignificant. CA8: Deterrence Pro's point about police chiefs ranking the Death Penalty last in terms of crime prevention is irrelevant. I never once argued that the death penalty is the best way of reducing crime, or even a highly effective way; in fact, I have readily admitted from the outset that the deterrence effect of the DP is minimal. But logic and evidence indicate that the effect *is* existent, and that observation does serve to bolster the practical benefits of keeping the DP legal. CA9: Recidivism Pro's offers two arguments. His first argument operates on the assumption that my justice argument holds up, claiming that since some people die in prison, being sent to prison is somehow the equivalent of the death penalty, in which case imprisonment is preferable due to its lesser costs. But there is a major flaw with the notion that imprisonment is the equivalent of the DP because of in-prison deaths-- sending all death-deserving criminals to prison does not even come close to ensuring that all of them will actually die! Thus, the central premise of this argument is completely false, rendering the whole of it to be invalid. Pro's second argument is also based on the fallacious idea of the DP and LWOP being equivalent, and should be rejected for the same reasons as the first. ============ CONCLUSION ============ The resolution is first and foremost negated on the basis that Pro has failed to refute my argument regarding the DP's necessity in properly serving justice-- the most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishments, and death is definitely the most serious punishment (both points were basically conceded by Pro). Furthermore, each and every one of Pro's arguments against the DP have been completely refuted, especially since the precedence-of-justice argument has gone untouched by Pro. Lastly, I have demonstrated that there are some practical benefits of the death penalty's implementation (besides the general sense of security people get from knowing their government will properly deal with the scum of society), neither of which Pro has been able to cast sufficient doubt upon. The resolution is negated. |
40 | ed87542a-2019-04-18T16:41:26Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty I will show try to show why the Death Penalty should not be allowed in the United States. My opponent will try to show why the Death Penalty should be allowed in the United States. |
24 | 5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense. |
45 | 540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny. |
17 | c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Hello, and thanks to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this important issue. I will begin by stating my contention. Growing marijuana, possessing marijuana, and using marijuana for recreational use (medical marijuana should be legal) should remain illegal, but the penalties for each of these violations should be altered drastically. This is a much more reasonable policy than full legalization. I would like to begin by stating that I agree entirely and will not attempt to refute many of the claims I anticipate that my opponent will make. I agree that marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for pain, that THC has been adequately proven not to have a direct adverse effect on the human body, and that the United States' policy on drugs is completely ineffective and has made no progress whatsoever towards their goal. If my opponent would like to present any other traditional arguments against the illegality of marijuana, chances are quite high that I will agree with them. However, Pro should not be disinclined to present them - just know that we are probably on the same page on 90% of issues concerning marijuana. I will now give overviews of how laws concerning marijuana should be changed, and the reasoning behind why it should not be fully legalized. I will not extensively cite sources, as this is an overview of my position - I will use hard data more extensively in later rounds, after I see what my parts of my argument my opponent chooses to combat. First, the so-called "War on Drugs" has been proven to be completely ineffective by both marijuana advocacy groups and neutral government research. Those who still agree with our current policies, which incarcerate thousands of people each year on non-violent offenses and cost the tax-payer absurd sums of money, are very few and far between. Instead, fines and other violation level punishments should be enacted to control and discourage the recreational use of marijuana. Why should marijuana not be fully legalized? There are several reasons. 1. The fact of the matter is, while THC itself is not a harmful substance, there are still negative health effects associated with the smoking of marijuana. It is reasonable to assume that if marijuana were legalized, marijuana cigarettes would begin to be sold in stores. As such, people would purchase and smoke these cigarettes. Some studies have found that, while 'joints' do not directly cause lung cancer or emphysema, they do have some negative effects on both the lungs and the brain. 2. Additionally, THC is an intoxicant. Anecdotal arguments are made quite often to suggest that marijuana use does not effect driving ability. However, this is absurd, as marijuana is a psychoactive chemical which has numerous effects on the brain and has drastically different effects which depend entirely on the user. Drunk driving is currently responsible for a great number of car accidents in the United States. While it is a fact that people use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal, and drive under the influence, I do not believe that legalizing it would have any positive effect in terms of curbing 'high driving'. Instead, methods for road-testing suspected drivers under the influence of marijuana should be developed, testing technology should be implemented by police departments, and laws should be changed to punish high drivers in the same way that drunk drivers are punished. 3. If legalized, marijuana would being to be mass-produced and large companies would soon dominate the market. Today's massive tobacco companies are very rich, and as such, have powerful lobbyists that make it very difficult to change laws concerning the distribution and marketing of cigarettes. It took years just to legally force tobacco companies to display warnings on their packets, and to change advertising methods to stop targeting children. There is no reason to assume that marijuana companies would enter the market with the public's good intentions at heart. Instead, the same types of money-mongers who capitalize on the public's urge to drink and smoke would presumably take control of the market and gain similar deceitful legal power. There is currently little control over the dangerous pesticides and chemical additives in tobacco cigarettes - again, there is no reason to assume these large marijuana companies would treat their crops and products with a similar disregard for their consumers' safety due to mass-production and distribution. 4. While it is true that marijuana smuggling is responsible for a great number of unnecessary casualties of drug wars in Mexico, marijuana is by no means the only drug these black market cartels are responsible for. While legalizing marijuana would certainly decrease gang activity dealing with that particular drug, it would simply shift their focus to other drugs or illicit activities. It would take full across-the-board legalization of all drugs to effectively end these deadly battles, and that is not the resolution. 5. The culture of intoxicant use in America has a long history, and while views have shifted over the years, there is still a general attitude of reverence towards legal intoxicants, especially alcohol. The simple fact is that legalizing marijuana would cast it in a more favorable light. While alcohol is known to have detrimental effects on the human body, the fact that this is generally recognized does not diminish the drinking culture that is promoted in films and on college campuses nationwide. The fact that alcohol is legal means it is generally permitted, and endorsing yet another intoxicant does not seem productive. 6. Legalizing marijuana would mean that it would be easier to obtain. While those that seek it are able to find it, it is still more difficult and risky than simply walking into a store and purchasing it. This would mean that underage (if, as should be presumed, there was an age law associated with marijuana) people would also be able to obtain it more easily, and marijuana IS proven to have a negative effect on the developing brain. Combining the above reasons, among others, I do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana use. A pre-negation: the argument that marijuana should be illegal because alcohol is illegal is not valid. If brought, I will explain why. If not contested my opponent excepts the validity of this statement. I look forward to my opponent's argument! I have a feeling we are going to agree on a lot, but there are going to be key differences. Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to debate this issue, and I look forward to a productive, illuminating debate. |
19 | ea2e9a61-2019-04-18T17:43:10Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal Contention 1: Definition of Marriage I do not see how the current definition of marriage has any weight on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. This would be similar to saying "Gay marriage is illegal, therefore it should be illegal". This argument essentially dropping the whole purpose of the debate in favor of preserving the status quo. Furthermore, you state that the purpose of marriage is to continue with the survival of humanity. However, this ignores the fact that homosexuals do not have any sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex. If a homosexual is not going to marry a person of the opposite sex anyway since they are not attracted to them, then there is little harm in allowing them to marry a person of the same sex who they are actually attracted to. Contention 2: Same-sex couples currently have no legal right to marry Stating that same-sex couples currently have no right to marry bears no weight, either - this is something that is able to be objectively proven, and I'm not trying to argue that they do have this right currently. This also ignoring that the debate is about whether or not we should change this, i.e. the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Stating the current state of affairs does not support your side. Contention 3: No law should be passed that goes in direct conflict with the majority of the peoples voting opinion.I find it interesting that you stated this - a poll conducted in late 2012 found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage. More recent polls are even more in favor. Look at this Washington Post-ABC poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com... 58% of Americans support gay marriage, according to this poll. Due to the possibility of Washington Post being biased in favor of same-sex marriage, I'll include a Fox News poll, too: (I love the difference in headlines: "Americans deeply divided over approval of same-sex marriage")http://www.foxnews.com...While the Fox News poll shows a perfect tie (46% pro, 46% con +/-3%), the most important aspect of both polls is that younger age groups support gay marriage to a much greater extent than older age groups. This means that support for same-sex marriage is going on an upward trend, future generations will only support it more, and older generations which do not support it as much will die off, therefore, nothing is going to stop this trend for generations. With this, I feel that I have adequately turned this argument to my side. Contention 4: People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. People having their tax dollars spent to support gay marriage, even if they don't support it, is a very weak argument. I don't support war, but my tax dollars are still being used for that. I don't support slashed taxes for the wealthy, but my tax dollars are being used to compensate for that. In addition, same-sex couples and people in support of gay marriage (currently the majority as suggested by the polls I cited earlier) would be paying taxes as well. If we only spent on things everyone agreed with, nothing would get done - someone always disagrees with something! As I have argued, healthcare costs for gay couples can only go down when gay marriage is recognized by the government, as more people in committed, monogamous partnerships reduces the spread of STDs.Contention 5: Change in social norms in favor of gay marriage would be a bad thing.Times always change. Whether it is new scientific knowledge increasing our understanding of the universe around us or cultural fusion, social norms will change because of this. "The reason for change in norms is growth but same-sex marriage provides no growth."Are you talking about population growth? I don't think that every change in social norms has been to make people reproduce more. If you're talking about cultural growth, same-sex marriage would provide that. Same-sex marriage is considered one of the most important parts of the LGBT rights movement. Many civil rights movements have ended in a cultural renaissance once those people are able to express themselves freely. An example would be the Harlem Renaissance."It has been the norm throughout society that marriage is between a man and woman exhibited in my first contention."Plenty of ancient cultures allowed same-sex unions. Rome allowed it until Christianity spread and became the new religion of Rome, with the passage of Theodosian Code 9.7.3. Several Eastern cultures allowed (or at least did not explicitly forbid) same-sex relationships. It's the norm of Christianity, was spread by Christianity, and for 58% of Americans to agree with same-sex marriage, it would mean that even some Christians don't agree with it."It causes grief and puts a 'on the spot' situation for parents explaining these abnormal activities. This will cause discomfort in parents and also children." "Causes grief"? I'd like to see an explanation of this. How would being tolerant of differences and accepting the fact that homosexuals exist cause grief and discomfort? Either way, with 58% in support of gay marriage, it looks like the majority is willing to deal with this supposed 'grief and discomfort'."Even a young child knows that mommy and daddy makes babies."If someone is straight, they don't need to be told to like the opposite sex. They just do. Homosexuality isn't just something that can be walked into.Look at this report by the APA: http://www.apa.org...In just about all of the documented cases described, religion is the main factor that leads people to feel rejection on basis of sexual orientation. It isn't something that can be changed. Freud had no promises about it, and he thought homosexuality was developmental arrest and that bisexuality was normal as well as heterosexuality, however, as I quote from that report: "[I]n a now-famous letter, Freud (1935/1960) reassured a mother writing to him about her son that homosexuality was "nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness, but a variation of sexual function" (p. 423). He further went on to say that psychoanalysts could not promise to "abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place" (p. 423), as the results of treatment could not be determined." We don't know what causes homosexuality. We may never know. In the words of Emerson Pugh:"If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it."This does NOT mean to just start jumping to conclusions over every correlation, as correlation does not mean causation. Contention 6: Loss of meaningI shall go ahead and say that this whole section is based on an appeal to tradition fallacy. Furthermore, polygamy was practiced by the LDS church (Mormons) in the late 19th century, so I fail to see how you believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy when it has existed without gay marriage.Contention 7: Inadequate parenting Your claim that marriage will be further weakened by same-sex marriage not only jumps to a conclusion, but is countered, quite ironically, by an argument from the same source you used. I'm approaching the character limit, so I'll just say it is number 12 on the pro side.The report cited for #6 is from the Family Research Council, and the report is a prime example of a cherry-picking fallacy. When reading it, I noticed several places where the numbers were conveniently left out. Some studies cited dated back to 1985 and not many go past 2004, when gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, which was the first time it was legalized at all in the US. The lack of any evidence in favor of same-sex parenting when such evidence clearly exists from reliable sources makes this paper lack any credibility. I wish I could say more, but I'm out of characters for this round. |
27 | da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00005-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control (Copy #2) My opponent has used his acceptance round to state his arguments. Based on this I will begin my rebuttals in Round One, and post my main arguments afterwards. R1 "The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do." It is true that guns do not cause violence, they are simply the middlemen, so to speak. And it is also true that deranged individuals are often behind gun violence. These two statements are true, but that does not mean there shouldn't be gun control laws in America, as my opponent suggests in the first sentence of the quote above. If deranged individuals do cause gun violence, then there should be laws in place to control and hopefully prohibit said deranged individuals' access to guns. Gun control laws are already minimal in America compared to those in countries like Australia[1] or Japan[2], and to further lessen our laws and regulations is an invitation to an even greater ease of access for deranged individuals. R2 "Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal." This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this. More importantly, there can be many factors not taken into account when measuring such statistics. For instance, what if an area is experiencing a significant amount of gun violence, and decides to give stricter gun control laws a shot. The following year after this decision may not see much change, simply because the new laws take a while to have full effect, but people taking the statistics take a quick look at the area and say, "Yep, they've still got gun violence." R3 "The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty." I'd like to stress the use of the word 'original'. The Constitution was crafted at a time very different than ours, when militias were relied upon to help fight in the revolution. The United States was a baby nation at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the forces of law and order were few and far between, and so it was necessary for people to join into militias to provide protection. America is no longer at that stage however. We have a tangible police force to protect us now. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. A complete ban on guns is not required, but completely free access to guns is no longer needed. R4 "government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies." It seems my opponent's contention here is aimed at a ban on weaponry. I am not for a complete ban on weaponry in the US, so I cannot rebuttal this in its entirety. However I will comment on the idea that firearms are necessary in the modern world to protect oneself from enemies. Statistics show that legally owned guns are rarely used to stop criminals. In fact, legally owned guns are found to be used in socially undesirable ways, such as threatening spouses and children, illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]. Legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense. This is contradictory to my opponent's idea that guns are necessary for safety. Main Argument: Point 1 I do not argue for a complete ban on weapons in the United States. I argue for smarter and stricter laws regarding gun ownership, especially in gun acquisition. Currently 20% of gun sales are private[4], without background checks taking place. This is a huge loophole for potential deranged individuals. Point 2 We have seen many countries enact very tough gun laws, and been the better for it. My two biggest examples are that of Australia[1], and Japan[2]. Japan has virtually no civilian owned guns. The only weapons that are legal to purchase are shotguns and air rifles, and these are extremely hard to come by, due to the complicated gun acquisition process in place. Japan has had as few as 2 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US's 12,000 firearm related homicides in the year 2008[2]. Or take Australia, which has seen significant reduction in gun related homicide since the NFA was enacted[5]. It is impossible to look at scenarios like this and claim it's due to chance, and that the same could not happen in America if stricter gun laws were introduced. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://guncontrol.org.au... |
32 | 45121256-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post). Hi and thanks for taking part in the debate. I shall now deal with each of the points you raised. 1: AV is complicated. You first raised the argument that the Alternative Vote system is complicated, and that people would be less likely to vote with a complicated system. If you have a child, and you ask that child 'which chocolate bar would you like', the child might answer something like 'mmm I'll have a snickers but if they don't have a snickers I'll have a galaxy'. That child just understood the basic concept of Alternative Vote: preferences. It is not at all complicated. You also raised the point that AV is only used in 3 countries worldwide. What is often overlooked is that STV (single transferable vote) is a system that is exactly the same as Alternative Vote, but used in multi member constituencies. This system is used in a large number of countries worldwide, including some member states of the European Union. NO other European Union member state uses First Past the Post. 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. Alternative Vote does not claim to be a proportional voting system. But neither is First Past the Post, so in trying to establish which of these two voting systems is better - there is no point entertaining any ideas of proportionality. Secondly, you raise the fear of endless coalition governments and put forward the idea that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats would always have the power to choose governments. This is actually what has just happened under First Past the Post. In truth, this fear of coalitions is unfounded and irrational. Many of our European neighbours 'endure' coalitions through most governments, and it becomes the political way. There is nothing to be afraid of. Examples of countries where successful coalitions dominate include much of Scandinavia (take a look at Norway, Finland etc) While you raise the issue of the results made by Alternative Vote as being 'undemocratic' you fail to defend First Past the Post itself as being 'democratic'. I would argue that if we had a democracy scale in front of us, Alternative Vote would far be considered 'more democratic' than First Past the Post. The fact of the matter is, that First Past the Post leads to minority rule. As I stated in my first posted argument, only on government in the last 100 years (in 1931) enjoyed an actual 'majority' ie. more than 50% of the vote. It is surely impossible to defend minority rule as being 'democratic' in nature. If we are comparing First Past the Post and Alternative Vote on a democratic level, I refer you to this study carried out recently at the London School of Economics: http://www2.lse.ac.uk... Here, 22 voting theory experts from around the world compared voting systems to see which one was most fitting for UK democracy. Every single one of them rejected First Past the Post. 10 of them chose the Alternative Vote. (the other 12 chose Approval Voting, but we are not debating that here). 3. Changing to AV would be costly. This is a lie (though it is not your lie). Firstly, you have included in your argument the sum of £91 million for the cost of the referendum. This figure is completely irrelevant seeming as this money has now been spent whether or not we implement AV. You go on to quote a figure of £130 million to be spent on electronic counting machines to be used with the new system. This is false. Electronic counting machines are unnecessary, and the Electoral Commission has already stated that they would be unnecessary. In Australia (where they use AV) they continue to count by hand, and do not use electronic counting at all. That cuts the cost from £250 million to £26 million, to be spent on informing the public on how Alternative Voting works. This is an absolutely minuscule figure in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that it is to enhance the quality of our democracy. Who can put a price tag on democracy? 4. AV is unfair. You use an example how someone who finishes first in the original count - ie, someone who wins under First Past the Post, can go on to lose to someone originally placed 3rd or 4th. Again, in Australia, where they use the system, only in less than 5% of cases do those who are placed 1st after the first round of counting, do those candidates fail to go on to win. First Past the Post is the system that is unfair. Here is (fake) example: ROUND ONE (FIRST PAST THE POST RESULTS ROUND) Conservatives: 35% Labour: 33% Liberal Democrats: 24% Green Party - 8% Ideologically, 65% of the voters above voted for a party either considered Liberal or Progressive. The majority (though not all, I concede) of these voters would be more likely to want a Progressive, or Liberal candidate & government, than a Conservative, right-wing one. Under AV, with the Greens eliminated a second round of voting might look like this: ROUND TWO Conservatives 36% Labour 37% Liberal Democrats 27% Still no winner, as no candidate has achieved 50% of the voter. Liberal Democrats are now eliminated and their votes redistributed. ROUND THREE Conservatives 43% Labour 57% ++++LABOUR WIN++++ Not only do we now have a winner, but we have a winner that over 50% of the electorate have specified a preference for. Over 50%of the population said they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and that's what we have. This is MAJORITY RULE. This is fair, and democratic. The only way it could be improved is if it was a proportional system. But neither is First Past the Post, so FPTP cannot criticise AV in this respect. First Past the Post would have simply produced a winner who only managed to achieve 35% of the popular vote, and 43% preferential overall. This candidate did not have broad appeal. Under First Past the Post he/she (not to be sexist) could potentially have contually been re-elected by a minority, despite a majority preferring someone else. I ask my debate partner the following: How can First Past the Post be defended as being democratic when it has been shown to produce minority rule 99% of the time. What price would be acceptable to pay for improving the quality of democracy in the country? What he fears from a coalition government, when they work so successfully in many other developed countries? |
33 | 9db2dac9-2019-04-18T15:18:19Z-00007-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | People are too dependent on technology. Technology is a great thing which has led mankind from hunter gatherers roaming from place to place into the dominant species of the planet. However as technology has advanced we as a society in general have lost the need for basic survival skills and knowledge. How often is that when people get lost or stranded for any considerable length of time that they perish? Granted today as a result of technology people aren't often lost or stranded for long but when they are they more often than not lack a basic knowledge of survival, which would enable them to survive. Our ancestors survived for centuries like that but in the modern world if the average person should somehow be cut off from society for a short period of time they tend to die, either of starvation, exposure or a number of other avoidable factors. Technology has enabled us to live longer, safer, more wholesome lives but as a society we are losing touch with our roots and the basic skills that allowed us to reach the heights at which we soar today. |
7 | 351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States Thanks to Con for a fine debate. 1. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal What is just and who is to decide what is just? I say a contract killer who tells a child he is going to murder the child's parents, and then follows through and does so, deserves to be executed. Con would not say the killer does not deserve execution. The death penalty is the just punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed "the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death." We are debating the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. Con questioned whether the community really should determine what justice requires. The only alternative to the community making the determination is to have the decision made by a non-democratic elite: a religious leader, an authoritarian government, or a class of people put above democracy in some other way. Our society has strong guarantees of free speech, so that issues are freely debated and democratically resolved. In our society there is no elite more qualified than the people to determine what is just. Support for the death penalty by the general public is 64% in favor and 29% opposed, and support has been stable. Supreme Court decisions have ensured that objective standards and sound procedures be enacted by each state to ensure that the death penalty is reserved for serious offences, and that there are safeguards against wrongful execution. In individual cases, a jury decides if the nature of the crime merits the death penalty under law. 2. Execution saves innocent lives There have been over 14,000 executions since the World War II, most of them before higher safeguards were instituted. Con claims that 27 wrongful executions either have occurred or would have occurred. 17 of those were people on death row freed by The Innocence Project, whom Con insists would surely have been executed, even though they were not. However, even the Innocence Project itself does not support Con's claim. After conviction, there are mandatory appeals within the system as well as third party examination. Those measures work well. Con cites 10 executions listed on an anti-death penalty site. However, Con misreads the site. The site claims that only eight wrongful executions have ever been determined officially, and that the ten cited ought to be looked at for the possibility of wrongful execution. I did not examine the claim of eight executions being officially established, because Con didn't cite it. I have granted that there have probably been a handful of wrongful executions in the past, and perhaps eight of the 14,000 is the right number. Con has not established any. If wrongful conviction were common, there should be, at least, many hundreds. The upper bound, according to Con, is 17 + 10 + 8 = 35. In further arguments, we shall see the rate is dropping. Convicted killers sentenced to life imprisonment have a free pass to kill fellow inmates and guards, because they are already under life sentence. They may also kill outside prison in an escape. No one systematically counts how many deaths are a consequence of life sentences. One site listed 29 deaths of fellow inmates, guards, and escape victims. Con challenged that none were recent, so I found four more with a quick web search. Another 79 deaths followed parole or release. The best numbers available are that there have been eight deaths from wrongful executions, and a minimum of 33 murders by those kept in prison. The prison murders are not systematically counted and could be much higher. Additional lives are saved by deterrence, discussed below. Con claims that increased security of confinement might reduce the free pass deaths. I'll discuss that under costs. 3. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics DNA testing and modern forensics have ensured that there are fewer false convictions, and also that fewer guilty persons escape justice. I think that is undisputed. Con argues that wrongful convictions might still result from police misconduct or non-forensic evidence. It's possible, but the CSI effect reduces that possibility as well. Juries are now more likely to demand forensic evidence than before, so that withholding evidence or using false statements are less likely to succed. Defensive attorneys systematically demand independent forensic examination in capital cases. 4. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Innocent people are killed at the rate of 30,000 per year in traffic accidents. Eight innocent people have been killed in 60 years by having a death penalty – or if Con is correct it is 35 in 60 years. If we can tolerate 30,000 deaths per year for the sake of convenience in driving, we ought to tolerate fewer than one per year for the sake of justice. Con does not dispute this claim. He argues that justice is not worth the cost of the death penalty; that's a different argument. 5. Justice deters crime I did not claim that that Japan's low crime rate was due to the death penalty. My claim is that a culture of justice deters crime, and that having proportional punishment is essential to a culture of justice. The example of Japan shows that the death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society. Those opposed to the death penalty cite statistics that crimes rates do not depend upon whether a state has or does not have a death penalty. I explained early in the debate why that comparison is invalid. For example, California theoretically has a death penalty, but doesn't enforce it. The cultures vary from state to state depending upon many factors. North Dakota does not have the uraban population of new York, for example. States cannot be compared. What is valid, however, is instituting or revoking the death penalty in a given state. That eliminates the factors of enforcement and cultural disparity. Numerous studies, in the US and worldwide, show that the death penalty is demonstrated to be a substantial deterrent. Murder rates doubled upon removing the death penalty and were halved by instituting it. Con did not dispute the constant-culture studies, but only reference invalid cross-culture comparisons. 6. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con grants the effectiveness of the death penalty in plea bargaining, but again claims it is not worth the cost. Con. 1. Costs Opponents of the death penalty grossly inflate costs by aassuming the higher costs of maintaining inmates on death row would be reduced to that of mixing convicted murderers in the general prison population. The data for California showed death row to be double the cost for the general maximum security prison costs. They assume that all the costs of litigation are necessary. The costs are not necessary because they include absurd attacks on the system (such as lethal injection drugs requiring FDA approval), the costs depend heavily on the court system (Texas is less expensive than Florida or California), and they assign total costs to a few executions. For example, California litigated over 600 death row cases, but due to the strong agenda of California judges, only 13 executions were carried out. That makes the cost per execution ridiculously high. Con's proposal for preventing free pass killings was higher security, but that is expensive. Death row is about twice,and no-human-contact (supermax) is even higher. Con did not contend my claim that no-human-contact confinement is likely to be ruled cruel and unusual, Additional cost savings derive from plea bargaining lower prosecution cost and freeing up police for other investigations. Deterrence lowers the number of murders to be prosecuted. Cost, justice, and savings of innocent lives all favor the legality of the death penalty. |
6 | 561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College is worth it I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate, I had several unexpected events come up. All votes should go to my worthy opponant and if he sees fit to re-issue this debate, someone more worthy than me should accept. |
43 | c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Which water is the best water According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities—such as distillation or coronation—are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama's Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb. |
35 | b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they've got."OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions." My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting." Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."and this quote: "Children's estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses."We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the "bystander" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. "In the famous 1964 "Kitty Genovese" incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty's neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4)." 2. Let's get to the real question, "What causes the effect?" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as "diffusion of responsibility." To clarify my source continues, "One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as "diffusion of responsibility". Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases."We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show "significance." Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... "Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org... |
45 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | 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; |
46 | 13140d00-2019-04-18T18:00:31Z-00004-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | China is in trouble China suffers from a myriad of economic, social, political and geopolitical problems, and is in a fragile state as it advances into the 21st century, fraught with complex danger and uncompromising enemies. This round will center on China's economic strength and China's economic woes. Since the late 1970s and with the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, China has moved from a closed, centrally planned system to a more market-oriented one that plays a major global role - in 2010 China became the world's largest exporter and the IMF estimates China will become the worlds largest economy by 2016. Xiaoping's reforms began with the phasing out of collectivized agriculture, and expanded to include the gradual liberalization of prices, fiscal decentralization, increased autonomy for state enterprises, creation of a diversified banking system, development of stock markets, rapid growth of the private sector, and opening to foreign trade and investment. China has implemented reforms in a gradualist fashion, phasing "5-year plans" in and out. The restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978, currently estimated at $11.44 trillion USD at PPP prices. The dollar values of China's agricultural and industrial output each exceed those of the US; China is second to the US in the value of services it produces. However, per capita income is below the world average at $8,400 USD at PPP prices (122nd worldwide). The Chinese government currently faces numerous economic challenges, including: 1. reducing its high domestic savings rate and correspondingly low domestic demand; 2. sustaining adequate job growth for tens of millions of migrants and new entrants to the work force; 3. reducing corruption and other economic crimes; 4. managing the increase in wages and inequality properly and 5. containing environmental damage and social strife related to the economy's rapid transformation. Economic development has progressed further in coastal provinces than in the interior, and by 2011 more than 250 million migrant workers and their dependents had relocated to urban areas to find work. One consequence of China's population control policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world, which is having its own effect on China's economy. Deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the North - is another long-term problem. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development, and is starting to become a serious problem. With only 7% of the world's arable land, China must feed 22% of the world's population. Moreover, China continues to lose farmland through soil erosion, decreased soil fertility, and steadily expanding urban encroachment. The Chinese Bureau of Statistics estimates that as of 2009, China's arable land stood at 1.83 billion mu (approximately 122 million hectares). This figure represents a significant decrease in amount of available arable land. One researcher, reviewing the reduction from 1996 to 2005, estimated the total reduction to be 7.96 million hectares. This is despite an increase in population of 90 million people. As compared with other developed nations, China has a lower ratio of arable land to population. China is estimated to have .10 hectare of cropland per capita while the US maintains .47 hectare per capita and EU maintains .69 hectare per capita. Rapid growth has also attributed to increased land pollution. As agricultural land use has decreased, the need for high grain output has increase. As a result, Chinese farmers have developed an over reliance on the input of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The consumption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has shown a pronounced increase over the last few years. Indeed, China's consumption of pesticides far exceeds the average level worldwide and China's consumption of fertilizers per hectare far exceeds safety limits of developed countries for agricultural application. This overuse of fertilizers and pesticides could result in a serious decline of agricultural production. Additionally, industrial pollution has contributed to the arable land destruction, some estimate up to one sixth of China"s arable land is polluted by heavy metals. China is the world's number one consumer of coal, number one producer of greenhouse gases, and produces more sulfuric dioxide and particulate matter than all of Europe. These compounds contribute to acid rain, which damages crops, changes soil composition, and pollutes waterways. China also faces high corruption and low economic freedom. In the 2012 Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, China ranked 138th of 179, with a score (51.2, mostly unfree, just above repressed) lower than both global and regional averages. According to the Index, "Economic freedom in China rests on fragile foundations. The judicial system is vulnerable to political influence and Communist Party directives, and corruption is perceived as widespread. The party"s small leadership group holds ultimate authority, and direct control is exercised over many aspects of economic activity. The pace of genuinely liberalizing economic reform has slowed or stopped. The government has tried to counter the slowdown in global demand with expansionary fiscal and monetary interventions." According to the 2011 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, China scored 3.6, ranked 75th of 182, or "highly corrupt", and from 2001-2006, China's score averaged 3.4, placing it in the bottom third of corrupt nations. According to a study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, though the Chinese government has over 1,200 laws regarding corruption, the odds of a corrupt official being caught and punished is less than 3% out of 100%. The amount of money stolen through corruption scandals has risen exponentially since the 1980s. Corruption in China is concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as infrastructure projects, real estate, government procurement, and financial services. The absence of competitive political process and free press make these high-risk sectors susceptible to fraud, theft, kickbacks, and bribery. The direct annual cost of corruption in China is estimated at $86 billion USD, though the cost of indirect costs of corruption (efficiency losses; waste; and damage to the environment, public health, education, credibility and morale) could be much, much higher. Corruption both undermines social stability (sparking tens of thousands of protests each year), and contributes to China"s environmental degradation, deterioration of social services, and the rising cost of health care, housing, and education. Besides corruption, inequality in both wages and wealth distribution plagues China. According to the CIA, China's Gini Coefficient, a measure of income inequality, was 48, (100 perfectly unequal, 0 perfectly equal) in 2009, ranking it 52nd of 136, and in 2010, the International Institute for Urban Development in Beijing calculated China's Gini Coefficient at 43.8. Zhu Yinghui, a researcher at the institute, said that China"s wealth gap raised concerns about China"s development path. "The income gap between urban and rural, between communities, and lack of middle class are factors that could affect social stability," she said. Separately, an academic survey of more than 8000 households across China conducted in 2011 suggests a much greater level of inequality, with the top 10% controlling 56% of income. "That makes China more unequal than the United States and even more unequal than African societies" said Gan Li, a Professor at China's South Western University of Finance and Economics and Texas A&M University in the U.S., who led the survey. That commences my argument. I await your response. |
45 | 1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Today, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that "the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History." The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, "the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system." He also claimed that the statement that the "'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, "two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article "Penny Pinchers" for The Globe, "the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year." not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be "important to our pricing system." Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, " the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, "Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59." (William Saffire) *shakes head* |
Subsets and Splits