query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
24 | cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation Read my arguments clearly before you argue against it. 50% of the people live ON BORDERLINE poverty, 15% of those people live below the poverty line. If you make a penny more then the poverty salary then this government will not consider you living in poverty. 50% of people who dont pay income taxes are very, very poor. Some are in poverty, some arent but pretty damn close, some are just to poor to give any back."The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies".......... Thats what you said at the very end of round 2 and when I used it you claimed it was false....... are you just a liar or dont remember your own arguments?"I am in the 40% tax bracket, so you progressive system is %^&*. In a flat tax I get taxed 9% then my dad can hire more workes which stimulates the economy."1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money. I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 planThe main point behind the Pro's argument is thatFlat tax = more jobs = more money = everyone richerA flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they ownBill Gates made $900,000 in 2004,Microsoft made $9 billion for THE SECOND QUARTER of 2004 (1 quarter = 3 months)The company itself makes money which is then used only for the corporation, like to pay salaries or expand its businesses, that is NOT what Bill Gates's salary is for. That is his money and he can do whatever he wants with it. Bill Gates luckily has donated much of his annual income to charities but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivityWith all of their new wealth they DO NOT use it for expanding their businesses, that is what the rest of the money that their companies own is for. If the super rich want to put their own salaries back into their own companies thats a very noble thing to do, but a very RARE thing that happens as well. A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.A Progressive tax places taxes on INCOMES of Americans, those who are in poverty, near it, or are too poor to give back can be exempted from the system unlike in a flat tax. The wealthy then are taxed at a higher rate because they have so much to give and their salaries come from corporate profits which they are removing from the corporation for their own use. A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....So to sumarize,A flat tax does not create jobs,A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor, A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would...... |
23 | dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00002-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient."If the person would like to end their life right away" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind. |
24 | 4aa1f178-2019-04-18T12:47:06Z-00000-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Taxation (Pro) vs Flat Taxation (Con) I want to point this out before anything else, he said:"During the 1950s, things were acutally going pretty well in terms of economic growth: In fact, in 1955, GDP growth was 9.37% on the year, a remarkable amount. Incomes rose across the country, middle class families were better off and the economy was rolling."Actualy, ourr highest GDP growth was between 1880 and 1881 with a growth rate of 12.5%, {1} a period when there was no income tax! {2} Whereas the GDP growth rate in 1955 was actualy 7.1% {3} Strange think is I really doubt that the rich were taxed that much- here's what I think happened- the goveronment threatened the rich and the corporations with a 91% tax, so they wrote off most of their profits via investing in manufacturing or spending it into circulation, this created economi growtth because now the corporations were investing every cent they earned, which created more jobs, increasing the demand for work, and driving up wages. Regardless I think that our economy flourished despite the massive taxes, not because of them, infact the massive increases of wages and productivity we saw from the early 1940's to the late 1960's was because of massive investments by the corporations!CONCERNING PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME BRACKETSActually, a flat tax can help the people going on lower income levels if you simply raise the rate by which you measure their income. Here is what I mean=- right now, the "zero point," by which we measure someones income is 0. But if we raise this to say 20,000, and institute a 25% flat tax, then we will measure someones taxes a bit differently, i= income, t=tax:with 0 as the "zero point:"i(25%)=twith 20,000 as the "zero point:"(i-20,000)(25%)=tSo what does this mean for peter? Well, if we measure his tax rate according tothis negative income tax rate proposed by Milton Friedman {4}, it would look like this:1. (10,000-20,000)(25%)=t2. -10,000(25%)=t3. -2,500=tSo now Peter has to pay -2,500$ to Uncle Sam, which actually means that Uncle Sam will pay Peter 2,500$, which s far more beneficial to peter than taxing him 500$, not only does he not have to pay taxes, he also has an extra 2,500$ to help himself out. So as you can see, the libertarian flat tax system can actually be better for the working class than a progressive tax, which can only benefit eter if he is on welfare- and no onewants to be on welfare, but no one is going to refuse a tax rebate are they? This will allow Peters income to be subsidised without affecting his work incentive, and wih him retaining his dignity as a working member of society. {1}. https://www.measuringworth.com...{2}. http://taxfoundation.org...{3}. https://www.measuringworth.com...{4}. |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00012-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer. |
48 | a6f23d50-2019-04-18T13:31:49Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | should drinking age be lowered u r rong bcause u said tht if thy r 15 and in 2 yrs thy would be 18 actualy it wil b 3 yrs for thm to 18 |
23 | 950a295-2019-04-18T15:44:41Z-00007-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Hopefully the judges will throw away any unbiased opinions toward this matter that they had previously. First off, I would like to define some terms. Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. There could perhaps be multiple definitions of euthanasia, such as voluntary euthanasia (EV), in which the physician kills the patient based on family recommendations. In other words, the patients themselves may not be in dire circumstance. The other one is "physician-assisted suicide" (PAS). Please note that we will solely be using the literal definition of euthanasia in this argument. While you can argue various aspects on the other ones, please refer to the main definition above to guide the debate. With that being said, I would first like to debunk a few things about euthanasia that are very erroneous. First off, many physicians and common people ignorantly refer to euthanasia as "easy death" or "mercy killing. " In all honesty, little ease or mercy truly arises from this procedure. In all actuality, proponents of euthanasia champion a form of assisted suicide, as a plethora of benefits exist from the termination of life. Physicians begin to naturally think of the benefits they would be accruing to perform this euthanasia, instead of being concerned with the actual patient. This where the Hippocratic Oath comes in to play. According to the [original] Hippocratic Oath (the medical "constitution" as deemed by many), a physician, by law, "Is to neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor to make a suggestion to its effect. " Though some of the original's tenets have transformed drastically, this one has remained true to Hippocrates and the physicians of old. As reported by Harvard graduate and University of Chicago Medical School professor, Leon Kass, "In foreswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. " In other words, physicians are entitled to uphold the utmost respect and reverence to the human body. A Hippocratic physician, which is what all physicians technically are, is not respecting the body by performing this procedure. By nature, ending a patient's life remains completely contradictory to a physician's practice and does not depend on circumstance. (One could render a similar argument against abortion too, but we are sticking to euthanasia here). Restraining from giving the patients lethal doses of poison does not reflect a doctor's views on autonomy or freedom for the suffering. It, however, does demonstrate the sacred devotion of medical practice and the arcane dignity that revolves around human life. Ancient Egyptian physicians, and doctors all throughout history, were thought to have a sacred role in life. Galen himself, the "medical rebel," realized his practice should be taken extremely seriously. Unfortunately, the advancement of euthanasia has also engendered a "slippery slope" effect to the legalization of murder. By definition, the euthanasia will not take place unless a patient orders a physician to perform it. This falls under both the voluntary euthanasia and PAS categories as discussed above. However, voluntary leads to involuntary euthanasia, via the lack of delineation between the two. Since euthanasia benefits the doctor's wage by performing the procedure and taking the patient " out of their misery," indirect becomes normal. If murdering one in this fashion yields such incredible comforts, why should a physician even ask for the consent of the patient/family? Essentially, euthanasia enables all physicians, even the unscrupulous, to determine the value of each patient's life and to have the power to thwart it on a whim, if given permission. According to logic standards, one can reasonably deduce that euthanasia no longer prohibits all forms of murder. Thus, its very base parallels that of unconstitutional and illegal activity, and therefore remains unethical and not sacred. However, let us not just think about the legal/moral side of this. Let us look to other aspects of the medical field that have been hurting because of this. Due to the wider prevalence of euthanasia, palliative (end-of-life) care opportunities have dwindled. The Netherlands, for example, demonstrates the disastrous effects that the legalization of euthanasia has caused in regards to palliative care. Wesley Smith, a prominent lawyer for bioethics, claims that a Dutch physician has asked: "Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia? " In this way, the entire ethical background has shifted for medical purposes, as doctors view assisted suicide as a means to save their resources and time. Moreover, proponents for the legalization of "mercy killing" employ a philosophy that monetary gain and ease of labor are more important than human life. This, in turn, completely comprises the original purpose of medical practice, and now all physicians lose a sense of credibility. Plus, according to the Discovery Institute, very few young physicians seek specialties in palliative care due to the increased talk of euthanasia legalization. Therefore, hospice facilities have rapidly declined, and everyone has to suffer from this upcoming possibility. I don't think having hospice facilities decline all for the sake of legalizing euthanasia is worth it. Do you judges? 1) Kass, Leon, MD, PhD. Committee on Social Thought and for the College. University of Chicago. Public Interest, Winter of 1989. 2) Smith, Wesley J. , JD. "Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics. " Discovery Institute. 1997. 3) Various sources. "Euthanasia. " Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. Web. Jan. 7, 2014. . http://euthanasia.procon.org... |
40 | ed87cc88-2019-04-18T11:41:12Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty I believe the death penalty is wrong on a moral standpoint and from a logical standpoint: 1. State-sanction murder/Immoral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can we as a society tell people not to murder and then turn around and say "but the state can!" The death penalty is murder. mur"der G2;mərdər/Submit noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. You might argue that it is legal but I say it violates our 8th amendment which states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty is cruel punishment. If someone commits a horrendous act, I am not saying they should be excused, I am saying they should not be murdered by the state. The death penalty is also dangerous. We run the risk of killing innocent people. Many states have reopened cases where there might have been a chance that the person was wrongfully killed. We already mess up on prison sentence, sending people to prison for 19 years for crimes they did not commit. What makes you think it won't happen in death penalty cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Costly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades." https://www.commondreams.org... One example of this is in Oregon where: "in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year." https://oadp.org... Furthermore: "According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. And let's not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal." https://www.forbes.com... So the death penalty uses up more money and time than a non-capital case. Contrary to popular belief, combining the full case costs of a non-capital trial vs the full case cost of a capital trial, death penalty in the end costs way more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Unjust/Racially Charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death penalty has also been proven to be biased towards white people and against people of color. The death penalty is also more likely to be applied when the defendant is black and the victim is white.. Martin O'Malley, JD, the former Governor of Maryland asserts: "Our nation's legacy of slavery and racial injustice find continued offense in our use of the death penalty. Our death row population is more than 40% black -- nearly three times the proportion of the general population." "The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black. Race is a "potent influence" at every step in the criminal (in)justice system, including search, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and execution." https://www.commondreams.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Not evidence of deterrence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime whatsoever. Why are wasting taxpayer dollars for something that doesn't even have any benefits? "Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital punishment on crime..." https://deathpenalty.procon.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. No healing And finally, my last argument is that the death penalty provides no healing. ""To me, the death penalty also is something else " a sad reminder of how our justice system typically offers punishment instead of healing for the survivors of violent crime"For a growing number of victims of violence, the thought of honoring our loved ones by killing another human being is not only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent." How does killing another human make us feel better? At the end of the day, the victim's families still feel the pain, the loss, and the agony of their loved one being taken away. https://deathpenalty.procon.org... |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Why the Federal minimum wage shouldn't be raised to $15.Since this debate is specifically about the Federal minimum wage, my arguments will focus on that. Since I missed a round, I will also provide my rebutalls to my opponents arguments.Cost of LivingThe cost of living varies across many states, and establishing a $15 federal minimum wage would either hurt a state, or overpay it's workers. We can use this tool provided by CNN to analyse this. Say we were to establish a $15 dollar federal minimum wage in place such as Des Moines, then the cost will be different in a state such as New York. For this example I will be using the $10.10 minimum wage, but all you have to do is extrapolate the data to see what will happen if we implement a 15 dollar minimum wage. For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate." These changes can be seen if we continue to compare other states. A federal minimum wage is just ineffective, because it's hard to pinpoint the right wage on a federal standpoint. Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities. Many states already have minimum wage laws that are set higher than the federal standard, and it's best if we let them take control of this, because they are accomodate their needs better.Will lead to job lossThink about the following senario. An employer has a worker, who generates him 20 dollars renvenue every hour. The owner pays him 15 dollars/hour, and makes $5 profit every hour. Now, the owner hires another worker, but he only generates 12 dollars revenue every hour. The owner pays him 7 dollars/hour, and generates $5 profit. Now, suppose a 15 dollar minimum wage is implemented, this would effect the owner very much. The worker was only generating 12 dollars, will know be paid 15 dollars for his work. What does that mean? It means the owner is losing money. No owner will want to keep losing potential profit, so he will likely fire the new employee. This is basic supply and demand law. And this According to several studies done by economists, they have come to the conclusion that minimium wage hikes will lead to job loss. This would also be significant since 64% of job creations come from small buisnesses.Here is some more evidence that proves minimum wage constitutes job loss. According to Federal Reserve bank of Chicago, "10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent." According to the American Economist, 61% of economists were against the idea of a minimum wage raise. All this evidence indicates that the minimum wage hike is a job killer, and that it shouldn't be increased to $15 especially. Alan Kruger, a economist who once did a study on minimum wage effects in New Jersey, opposed a $15 dollar minimum wage stating a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences." Here is a graph showing the rise of teen unemployment after the minimum wage increase. Nearly after every minimum wage increase, unemployment rates have increased. Does very little to help the poorEmperical dates indicates that a minimum wage hike doesn't really effect the poor, because 60% of those in poverty are not even in the workforce. So, this would make it harder for them to get a job, because employers will try to hire those who are most experienced and more equiped for the job, even though the minimum wage job was meant for youngsters to get job experience. "Research from economists at American University and Cornell University in 2008 showed the many state minimum-wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did nothing to reduce poverty rates. And economists at Ohio University found the federal minimum wage didn't decrease poverty, and may actually have increased poverty for certain subgroups."EITCThe earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. This method is far more feasible as means of reducing poverty than increasing the minimum wage. EITC does not have such detrimental employment effects such as unemployment and outsourcement of job but works the other way around for it really is a subsidy to employers to employ low value labor. Here is a graph showing the wages of employees without their EITC, and with their EITC. As you can see, the EITC boosts wages, and this will help reduce the wage gap between the rich and poor. The best part is, the unemployment disadvantages that minimum wage creates are not present. Other studies also prove that EITC decreases unemployment. Hoynes and Patel also find that the EITC has significantly boosted employment. A $1,000 increase in the credit translates into a 7.3 percentage-point increase in the employment of single mothers. This means that as a result of the boost in 1993, hundreds of thousands of women have entered the workforce. Notable people such as Warren Baffett have said expanding EITC is the right thing to do.ConclusionA $15 dollar minimum wage is not the way to go, because it's ignores the cost of livings by state, increases unemployment, does very little to reduce poverty, and other solutions such as EITC are much more effective.RebutallsFrom reading Pro's arguments, I feel like he is focusing more on the idea of a minimum wage, rather than $15 dollar figure. I'd like to mention the debate wasn't really about that, and Pro is most certainly aware of that, especially since he accepted the debate saying he would argue for a $15 dollar minimum wage.C1: David Card's studyFor Pro's first argument, he says that the Conservative narrtative about minimum wage killing jobs is false, because a study done by David Card and Alan Krueger demostrate that this isn't the case. First we need to look at what their actual study was about. It was comparing the minimum wages of two cities which compared the fast food prices of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's important to note that this study was done by comparing two cities with similar costs of living. Also, the increase did not show any data that the minimum wage was a positive thing, rather there wasn't much of an impact with the unemployment. However, this debate is about a $15 federal minimum wage. So, this example is apples and oranges in many instances, because comparing minimum wage increases among cities is much different than minimum wage increase nationwide. Interesting enough, Alan Kruger himself said he was against the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $15.C2: Price Increases and everything elseI'll admit I'm a bit confused now, because Pro makes some arguments against the minimum wage, which are increased food costs. Not sure how I'll refute this.Pro's arguments about the bias in minimum wage articles, is rather defensive. Even if those arguments are biased, it doesn't give any reason why the $15 dollar minimum wage should be there. This is more of a rebutall than an argument.Regarding the link of the Department of Labor, many of those arguments are just cherrypicked examples of some studies which show a net positive in minimum wage. For example, the first rebutall by the DOL shows that hundreds of economists agreed with Obama, but these don't represent every ecnonmist. Most economists are against the idea of the minimum wage, so this is just a cherrypicked argument. Also, Obama's proposal is not a $15 increase, but a $10.10 increase. There is not gurantee all those economists would still support a $15 minimum wage.Finally, Pro's gives an argument states that gradually increasing it would give us good data to draw conclusions, but that isn't reallly an argument for an increase. That's like saying we should just ban all guns, so we can see how it effects the crime rate, but ignoring all the colleral damage caused by it! Minimum wage increases will increase unemployment as I have shown, and is ineffective in reducing poverty.My sourceshttp://www.degruyter.com...http://wheniwork.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://reason.com...http://www.republicanreader.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.degruyter.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.krusekronicle.com...; |
23 | 1e884b5d-2019-04-18T15:59:17Z-00006-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia should be legalised I will be arguing that euthanasia (I am assuming of humans) should not be legal. |
16 | 21d8adf9-2019-04-18T19:05:27Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is more Educational than any Video Game Advertised to be Educational "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" or "SA" as I will now refer to it as, will contain more information beneficial to a person ages 6-16 than any other game marketed as, labeled as, or designed to be educational. While many educational games teach children common themes already being taught in public schools, such as math and reading, SA shows children skills that will be used in everyday life, regardless of their academic success. I will list the lessons SA teaches below. Also, the game's protagonist whose persona the player assumes is referred to as CJ. How to Eat Properly: Many children struggle with with obesity. (1) SA incorporates a system that allows the player to choose CJ's diet. (2) CJ can choose from a variety of different foods, such as pizzas, burgers, fried chicken, or salads. If a player eats too many of the pizzas, burgers, or fried chicken, his character will become overweight. Becoming overweight in the game is problematic, as it limits CJ from being able to do certain physical activities, such as jumping, biking, and swimming. Becoming overweight also puts CJ at risk for heart attacks. (2) However, if CJ does not eat enough, he will become too skinny. His svelte figure will also cause the same problems, aside from the heart attack. However, he will die randomly, which in terms of game play mechanics, is the same as a heart attack. SA teaches children about balanced dieting, even if not in depth. See (3). The Importance of Exercise: SA teaches children about the rewards of exercise. If the player exercises enough, he will become muscular, allowing him to do certain activities better. (4) For instance, if CJ does enough cardio, he will be able to run and bike faster, which is beneficial to the player, as CJ will need to be able to get to certain destinations quickly. The Importance of Sleep: While most children have parents to guide them through this lesson, many teenagers have trouble with sleep. (5) In SA, when the player needs to save, he goes to bed. The game's internal clock advances, and the players health is fully restored. (6) Basic Urban Navigational Skills: The average man will need to be able to read a map at some point, and this game not only teaches children how to read maps, but how to get from point A to point B as well. Almost every mission in SA involves going from one point to another, so knowing how to navigate through the complex environments is essential. The maps in this game are very intricate and realistic, giving children much real life experience. (7) The Importance of Avoiding Drugs: Kids need to avoid drug usage. While we could argue all day on whether on not drugs are bad, the fact that they are illegal remains. CJ is a "cool" role model for staying out of trouble, and remaining drug free. For instance, one of the minor characters in SA, Big Bear, becomes infatuated with cocaine. Loosing all of his money to the drug, he becomes a slave to his dealer, B-Dup, and let's his life become consumed by his addiction. (8) As a side note, the major characters who consume/deal drugs are killed because of their addiction. (9) (10) As you can see, SA illustrates many important life lessons to children. Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever takes up this debate. (1) http://www.cdc.gov...... (2) http://www.mightyape.co.nz...... (3) http://gta.wikia.com...... (4) http://gta.wikia.com...... (5) http://parentingteens.about.com...... (6) http://gta.wikia.com...... (7) http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net...... (8) http://gta.wikia.com...... (9) http://gta.wikia.com...... (10) http://gta.wikia.com...... |
8 | f98398d2-2019-04-18T13:31:20Z-00007-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal This debate will be a classic abortion debate: should abortion be legal? I will be arguing on the side of legal abortion. First round is acceptance only. Abortion - The termination of a pregnancy in which the fetus dies. |
19 | c69ebdd9-2019-04-18T13:14:29Z-00008-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment I accept the rules and would like to note that the resolution refers to marriage (not marriae). To be clear, I believe marriage is a spiritual contract that could easily be replaced with power of attorney rights. I also don't believe in governmental marriage benefits in general. However so long as the government recognizes heterosexual marriage, the goverment should absolutely recognize gay marriage and provide the same benefits to same-sex couples. |
23 | 4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. I think that for the overall success of this debate and for the comprehension of it by the readers, we should begin confident of what all terminology and related terminology mean, some of which haven't yet been covered. So let me take some time to explain the bigger picture. Let's start with regular euthanasia (EUTH); EUTH is most accurately described as the taking of another's life by a doctor in order to relieve them of their chronic and terminal pains or future mental degradation. Very extreme forms of EUTH existed in the Nazi regime, where the societal unproductive, disabled in mind or body, and those of a specific race or cultural background were 'euthanized' aka murdered. The main idea being that these people are deficient and not worthy of life. The normal form of EUTH is of course much, much less extreme, usually it is simply a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal drug or cutting of their life support. Here is where euthanasia splits into 2 different divisions. A, is active/ involuntary euthanasia where the doctor does not have any specific permission from the one being euthanized, it comes from other sources whether it be family, or Nazi regime in the past. In this case, the doctor would do something like inject the patient with a lethal drug.The second division of EUTH, B, is passive/voluntary EUTH; where the patient specifically asks the doctor to end their life and under no other party's directive. The doctor will then: pull the plug on life support/ stop giving them medicine/ let the disease take its course.Now we come to Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), This is where the patient explicitly asks the doctor to give them: medicine, injection...etc. which they will then inject/breath through mask/drink...etc., specifically with the patient doing the action which ends their life. I will defend that PAS is: very passive euthanasia. I believe so because in regular passive EUTH the patient doesn't even pull their own cord, it is the doctor. So in PAS all the doctor does is give them the ability to pull their own cord, which I think is better, because it gives them much more control....Keep in mind that right now, if a family member wishes, they can pull the plug on say a dying father on his last limb in the hospital. This is true in ALL U.S. states. What is really the difference between PAS and puling the plug? Americans generally support the right to physician-assisted suicide, though the number varies depending on how the issue is framed. As of 2013 it was as high as 71% when the phrase "end the patient's life by some painless means" was used. That dropped to 51% when the phrase "commit suicide" was introduced.But what about the physicians themselves?According to a survey published Dec. 17 by Medscape, an online professional network and information source for physicians, 54% of doctors answered the question, "Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?" with a yes. click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-e89c3-a.jpg" alt="" /> For this survey, Medscape asked more than 21,000 physicians a list of ethical questions. More than 17,000 of them were US doctors, while 4,000 European physicians responded.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...In contention 1 my opponent gives us a truck load of facts, however even though he calls them "horrible" he never says why. He wants viewers to assume: A, that these people were simply murdered which is expressly untrue, and B, that this indicates a s but beyond that he has not provided evidence to support this suggested assumption so please do no consider this until it is properly warranted and explained. Also his source for this was labeled as an error which should be in the "opinions sections" of the website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In contention 2 my opponent states that passing laws allowing any form of EUTH leads to massive and involuntary euthanasia however I would actually classify this claim under the Slippery-Slope fallacy because there have only been facts presented thus far, yet these facts alone do not indicate that passive EUTH has lead to involuntary EUTH; he may have stated that but that doesn't make it true. For instance he stated that strict laws were passed supported by medical associations in 1987 and less so in 2001. These are neat facts but that's is all they are, they don't imply actual cause and effect. Please remember that Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof! click="document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-u9ags-a.jpg" alt="" /> In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain, with thoughts still intact. Please provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.Here are quotes which attack statements and assumptions made during the last round:"There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals." -Penney Lewis, LLM, Reader in Law at the School of Law and Centre of Medical Ethics at Kings College, stated in a Spring 2007 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: article titled "The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia"Basically there is evidence that the percent of involuntary EUTH is less is the same in countries without legislation on the matter and as will be shown next, the legislation has actually decreased the amount of involuntary EUTH"look to the Netherlands, where they've had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now. In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient's explicit permission. You might argue that that's 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report—written a decade before euthanasia was legalized—put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient's lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths. But hey, that's just Holland, right? They do things differently there. Doctors in a less-hippie-liberal culture would never kill off patients without their consent, right? Well think again. In Britain, a 2012 study discovered that as many as 57,000 patients each year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. Instead, they're just shoved onto a "death pathway" designed to alleviate suffering without ever being told. So basically, doctors in the UK are already practicing euthanasia—only without any of the legal framework to check abuses that would come from legalizing it." -http://listverse.com..."In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide." -Agnes van der Heide, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University As far as the Hyppocratic Oath, the problem arises when "Do no harm" is said, however it does more harm to let live in these cases |
46 | 416740be-2019-04-18T11:19:36Z-00001-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | is evolution real Like you, I look forward to an intelligent debate. First, Let me give some definitions for a few things. Evolution- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Natural Selection- the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Most evolutionists agree that all life forms on this earth evolved from one, Or a few simple life forms aided in a process called natural selection. It is through this that they believe why we have every single living species on this earth today. For example, A dog goes through tiny, Minor changes over and over again, It can evolve into a dog aided by natural selection. This they believe would take of course, Millions and millions of years. A horse could evolve to other species, And so on. Thus, We apparently get all living species we see today. if this theory were true, Then where would the first place we would look for evidence. Well the fossil record reveals species that lived millions of years ago, So it would seem that we should look there first. What we should be finding are intermediate links that demonstrate a slow, Gradual process of one species evolving to another. For example, If a dog evolved into a horse, Then it would only make sense that somewhere in the fossil record, We should discover fossils somewhere in between a dog and a horse. The same for other species. As one species evolves to another, Which happens over and over again, The fossil record should reveal intermediate links between each species. Unfortunately for evolutionists, Very few were ever found, And even those were highly questionable. Even famous scientists such as Dr. Schwartz admit that we aren't finding nearly enough fossil evidence as we are supposed to be finding if evolution really happened. To me, It doesn't make sense to believe in something that has no fossil evidence to back it up. What the fossil record shows is the sudden emergence of new species with no apparent ancestors. From an evolution point of view this wouldn't make any sense as it is a slow process that takes millions of years for new species to emerge. But the fossil record would show that it almost happened overnight. Critics will tell you that fossilization is rare so that is why we aren't finding many transitional forms. But as evolution takes 100's of millions of years to complete, That should give plenty of time for fossilization of all sorts. Now to another argument against evolution. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, It is important to understand why it was originally believed to support evolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, Then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs. . http://itc. Gsw. Edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/homol1. Htm In this example, The limbs of humans and cats, And horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, He supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, Give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, This would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this occurs simply because of genetics. You see, If structural homology was the result of common ancestry, It would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, The link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, Horse, Cat, Bat, Bird, And whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, They find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, There is impossible that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, Then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. That isn't even close to the truth. Aside from DNA, The most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, There would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below. . https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1rN6jYckpQfu3VTflNWTyj2a8g38l6L78_rYlZHHkw3Y/edit Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, The cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, You are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, That is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, Then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, That should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, Let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo. Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9. 1% difference When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, There are 4 differences. 4/11 x 100= 36. 4% difference Credit for charts: Exploring Creation with Biology This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " Well, If this were true, Than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species. . https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1V_4ApE6bQ7nMZE-hd16NOpJ8QBYIO8nZ2RLwlk02FtE/edit The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms, The yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, Then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, The yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, It is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened. Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution: "Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. " Exploring Creation with Biology. They are exactly right. This just adds to the long list of chance coincidences for evolution to be possible. Source: Exploring Creation with Biology text book. Note: The charts I gave came directly out of this book. I did not make them up. |
30 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
38 | d3f81495-2019-04-18T13:14:02Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Weed prohibition Now that I know what I'll be arguing, I'll begin with a refutation. 1) Nah bro.Please call me Con, David_Debates, or David.2) You got it all wrong weed is bad for idk why you say its a great product when really its a horrible product that should of never been put up for resale.I would say you got it all wrong. "I don't understand why medical cannabis is still considered a schedule one substance. Why can't you just let me smoke weed in peace. There are no physical or mental problems that arise from medicinal marijuana use (Round 1, Pro)." Your words, not mine. You've agreed to my point before I started debating!3) I like this name by the way and look to keeping it (to commenters)I'm glad you like your name, but this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Your name (I'd rather not say it) has no influence on whether or not "weed" should be prohibited in the United States. If you want to say something to the comments, say it in the comments. With that out of the way, constructives.Medicinal herbs are not schedule one substances.According to the United States Controlled Substances Act, a medicinal herb cannot be a schedule one substance (1). If we are able to show how the Cannabis sativa plant leaves can indeed be used for medicinal properties, we can then truly say that marijuana should not be prohibited, but regulated. In order to do this, we will look at a) research done in the field, b) doctors that have prescribed Cannabis sativa to their patients, and c) the U.S. government's stance on the issue. First, we'll look at some research done in this topic. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has an article on the uses of medicinal marijuana and how, if enough clinical trials are carried out, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) may in fact accept Cannabis as a medicinal herb (2). Also, the site states, "However, scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications (2)." The FDA has already approved of some applications of marijuana in medicine. It's clear that even the government agrees that marijuana has medicinal uses.Second, we'll examine the testimony of doctors and patients who have used marijuana to treat illnesses. For example, the laws in California dictate that you must have symptoms of AIDS/HIV Anxiety Arthritis Cancer Chemotherapy Side Effects Eating Disorders Fibromyalgia Glaucoma Lyme Disease Migraine Headaches Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Radiation Therapy Side Effects Variety of Other Chronic, Debilitating or Terminal Illnesses in order to have a physician prescribe you medicinal marijuana (3). After this, your physician can write you a prescription for medicinal marijuana, which allows you to pick up marijuana at a dispensary. Other doctors prescribe Cannabis for hospice. Huffington Post writes, "Three out of four doctors would prescribe marijuana to a patient who was experiencing pain from cancer, according to the results of a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine (4)." Read more on the article linked.Finally, the government has taken a stand on the use of Cannabis in medicine. An Act, passed in 1996 in California, clearly states that "seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief (5)." The Act also states that "patients and their primary care-givers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction (5)." And it's not only California that recognises the use of Cannabis in the field of medicine, as 23 other states have laws on how marijuana is in fact a medicine (6).In conclusion, the research, doctors, and government all agree that Cannabis sativa has use in the medical field, and thus, should not be considered a schedule one drug by the United States Controlled Substances Act.I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.Sources:(1) http://www.dea.gov...(2) https://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) http://unitedpatientsgroup.com...(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(5) http://www.canorml.org...(6) http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... |
12 | 136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control. |
48 | 45570f76-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished. I am going to rebut my opponent's case and defend my own. Defense 1. The example my opponent provides is a flawed example. Elections, unlike bullets, are mutually exclusive. A more apt example might be a coin flip or a dice roll, where more votes is equal to more weight on that side of the coin or dice. Votes can sway the Election one way or the other, but those who vote against the majority are wasting their time. 2.My opponent claims that larger states states in fact have more power in the popular vote because the larger states would decide all of the elections. This appears to be a reasonable concern until we look at the population distribution of the United States. Even if a candidate got the top 100 cities to unanimously vote for them, from titanic New York City all the way down to mighty Spokane, the elector would only receive 19.4% of the vote, not nearly enough to win the popular vote.Also my opponent claims that making the smaller states power makes it more democratic. This is clearly false. A democratic system has equal representation, not disproportionate representation. 3. My opponent makes two claims here, that the law prevent biased voting and that it is not practiced. However, since an objective court could prosecute electors on this issue, the hypothetical is the issue here. Also, my opponent still claims that removing democratic pillars for a good reason is just, but that is simply not true. Democracy is the best system, and should be incorporated in all possibilities. 4.My opponent claims that FPTP systems are better because of their simplicity. Simplicity is not a measure of effectiveness, and this argument should be disregarded. A simpler system is not always a better one. 5. My opponent misses the point of my fifth point. The reason (at least partially) for no third party victors in US history. The example of teleportation is not effective because teleportation is not a part of physics, and the laws of the universe would have to rewritten for it to occur. The Electoral College is not as major as these laws. 6.My opponent claims that the US shouldn't focus on being too democratic since it was never based on pure democracy. Yet, those democratic aspects that they mention are the aspects being damaged by the Electoral College. My opponent again claims the large states would remain supreme, but this is the same argument he made previously, and should be disregarded with the same evidence of population distribution. 7. My opponent claims that people in swing states have an incentive to be more educated voters because their votes are more important in an election. This means my opponent agrees, some people are more important than others in the Electoral College. This is a fundamental issue that cannot be stated enough. The breakdown of democracy comes from the idea that some people are more important than others. This line of reasoning goes against all of democracy. 8.My opponent claims since the territories don't pay federal income tax, they shouldn't get a vote. Yet, not only territories don't pay that tax. In 2013, 43% of households didn't pay federal income tax, mainly the working poor, the elderly, and veterans. They all have their right to vote, and unless they are suggesting taking away their vote, this argument doesn't come into play. Also, only American Samoa or Swain"s Island have non-citizenship, the rest the territories grant citizenship. Attack 1.My opponent cross applies his argument so cross apply my attack from my second point. 2.My opponent yet again conflates simplicity and effectiveness, and also claims, that the STV is too complex. STV is a simple system that simply shifts one candidate for a ranking system. For example, say in this last election someone loved Gary Johnson but knew he was going to lose. Instead of voting for a candidate they don't like, but one that could win, they could show their support for Gary by making him the top vote. 3. My opponent claims the Electoral College is good because the end justifies the means. This is not the same as their original argument, that it would take too much effort. This is therefor a new argument and should be treated as such. If the end justifies the means, end not being the correct one in 40% of the last 5 elections, shows the means bring the wrong ends. They also claim prohibition was unjust but refuse to see that the argument about Prohibition was the precedent for removing amendments to the Constitution 4. My opponent makes the same claim that the smaller states need the boost for it to be fair. Cross apply my previous attacks on this argument,while also seeing yet again the Electoral College is inherently anti-democratic by making some people count for more than others. 5.In the obvious victor argument my opponent claims that when the votes don't match the electorate, that is good because it is efficient. Yet, my opponent still shows the ugly side of the Electoral College in this statement, since that efficiency comes at the expense of democracy. That is the core aspect of this debate, whether or not it is better to have a democratic system or an efficient one (even if the system isn't actually efficient). In my round 3 speech, point 2, I also point out how close election can occur in the electoral college, which shows that the argument about higher efficiency isn't even necessarily true. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to imagine a race where someone won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College. If the system is so efficient, then these problems would not occur. 6. My opponent claims they never committed a straw man, but that was the whole point of their sixth point. Their argument was the pro was against Federalism, and that is why the Electoral College is bad under the pro. Yet, as I have shown, the issues is not with its Federalism, but with the inequality and ineffectiveness of the system. In terms of the debate about the founding fathers, I never mentioned slavery, but only that they didn't believe in voting as a right in America for most people. The idea of voting is a Constitutional issue, via the 14 and 19th amendments, and so both points still remain. 7. My opponent conceded this point, while stating that this is not enough to tip the scales towards the pro. Yet, this is absolutely enough. Beyond Lincoln, there are four others who lost the popular and won the Electoral. (J. Q. Adams lost both but became president) Rutherford B. Hayes was president during the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Benjamin Harrison was one of the most inactive presidents ever, Bush started the War on Terror, and Trump; who hasn't actually has a presidency to judge yet, but in the election cycle constantly enforced the ideas of Stop and Frisk as well as purposeful torture and killing of Middle Eastern Civilians. None of these, save for Lincoln, were good presidents, and so we have to see that this fundamentally shows by itself why the Electoral College should be abolished. 8. My opponent claims that I engaged in a straw man when I claimed the Electoral College doesn't stop rigged elections, but makes them systematic. Yet, there was no straw man, I simply showed there was proof to fulfill the burden. Also, I mentioned how undemocratic that way of thinking is, and my opponent has no response because it is inherently stripping some people of equal voting rights. In his voting points, my opponent admits the Electoral College is less democratic, and asks why that is so wrong. Yet, the democratic aspect of equal voting rights is at stake here, and that is indeed a part of the democracy of America. Also, my opponent claims that my case was "lackluster" because it was "dismantled." They confuse attacking an argument with defeating it, as I have shown none of their attack stick when under close inspection. His voting issues are flawed. Vote Pro b/c it: 1. Upholds Equal Voting Rights 2.Is more Efficient 3.Helps the country be better |
1 | 863d3b02-2019-04-18T16:16:29Z-00005-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | should teachers carry fire arms if i accidentally hit my self with a bat in the face by accident I'm not going to die but if i accidentally shoot my in the face I'm am going to die |
2 | 69f38a86-2019-04-18T15:20:04Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking Ban Thanks once again to Snowbunny for this debate! I would like to take this chance to restate that the response time for this debate is a shortened 48 hours, instead of the usual 72 hours.INTROThe question were are considering is simple and straightforward: should the government prohibit the use of recreational tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and chew. Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people; the whole purpose of laws that restrict the consumption of dangerous drugs is that these laws have public utility. Consider the potential harms that drugs pose to individuals, and then consider if they were more widely available. It would pose a significant public health risk to the country.I will assert that if the benefits of a smoking ban outweigh the harms, then, as has been done with other substances, tobacco products should be restricted and prohibited. Any such ban should be phased in gradually, for reasons I will address later, but the ban should nonetheless go forward.THE HARMS OF TOBACCOP1. Health Risks to Smokers"Smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer. It causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia...Smoking also causes heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm (a balloon-like bulge in an artery in the chest), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), asthma, hip fractures, and cataracts. Smokers are at higher risk of developing pneumonia and other airway infections...A pregnant smoker is at higher risk of having her baby born too early and with an abnormally low birth weight. A woman who smokes during or after pregnancy increases her infant's risk of death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)...Men who smoke are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction." [1]There are also less severe, but still harmful, health effects of smoking. "'One of the chief and significant causes of premature aging of the face is smoking'...Skin changes, like leathery skin and deep wrinkling, are more likely in people who are regular smokers. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, smoking leads to biochemical changes in the body that speed the aging process. For example, smoking deprives the living skin tissue of oxygen by causing constriction of the blood vessels. As a result, blood doesn't get to your organs as easily, and that includes the skin. Another classic smoker giveaway is tar staining of the hands and skin from holding cigarettes." [2] Additionally, "smoking increases the chances of impotence dramatically for men by affecting blood vessels, including those that must dilate in order for an erection to occur." [2] Loss of breath is another common side-effect. "Many smokers report a diminished ability over time to comfortably do things as simple as climbing a set of stairs or enjoying sports activities they once easily took part in such as volleyball or jogging." [2] Smoking increases our susceptibility to minor illnesses like the cold and the flu as well. "Tiny hairs called cilia that line the respiratory tract, including the trachea and bronchial tubes, are designed to protect us from infection...One of the toxic effects of cigarette smoke is that it paralyzes the cilia, thereby destroying this core protective mechanism." [2]Just by quitting smoking, one can greatly increase one's life expectancy and expected quality of life. A person who quits at 30, for instance, reduce their chance of premature death due to tobacco use by 90%. Similarly, quitting at age 50 can reduce that chance by around 50%. [1]P2. Economic Costs to Smokers"[T]he average cost is about $5 per pack, and in some states it can be as high as $10 per pack, including federal and state taxes." [2] For users who are addicted, this is an ongoing, chronic, involuntary expense that becomes as essential as buying food. For poor families, a addiction to cigarettes can present a huge problem, one that might entail trade-offs between necessities or lead to crime in order to fund the addiction."Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity." [3]P3. Health Risks to Non-smokers"The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. An estimated 88 million nonsmoking Americans, including 54% of children aged 3–11 years, are exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same poisons in cigarette smoke as smokers." [3]"Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults...Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke...The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent...Exposure to secondhand smoke may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent...Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk of having a baby with low birth weight...Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of SIDS, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children's lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless." [1]"Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections." [3] "Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause 50,000 deaths every year. It's no wonder: More than 4,500 separate chemicals are found in a puff of tobacco smoke, and more than 40 of those are known carcinogens." [2]ConclusionThe ultimate, harmful impacts of tobacco are clear. They increase risks for illnesses at all levels of severity, and, even if used as directed, they lead to death and disease. "Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke." [3]IMPLEMENTATIONI would phase in a tobacco prohibition over a 25 year period. Years 1-5 I would allow sales of tobacco to people over 21, and allow tobacco companies begin to shut down production and prepare for the ban. Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal. I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just to give those people an alternative to smoking. Sales to everyone else would cease, and hefty fines would be imposed on those found in possession of illegal tobacco products. After five fines, a 6 month jail sentence could be levied. Years 16-20 would see the continuation of tobacco sale to the already addicted as well as the subsidization of withdrawal programs. The number of fines before a jail sentence would be reduces to three, and only select pharmacies would be authorized to sell tobacco--it could no longer be sold at grocery or convenience stores. Years 21-25 would see the discontinuation of all sales. Ideally, subsidized programs to reduce addiction would be continued well past that time frame. I would have tobacco then classified as a Schedule III Substance, with all the incumbent rules and penalties for possessing such a substance fully imposed. [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.cancer.gov...2 - http://www.webmd.com...3 - http://www.cdc.gov...4 - http://www.dea.gov...Thanks! And with that, I turn the floor over to Con...http://www.youtube.com...; |
39 | beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00001-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States Extend my original arguments for another round. Can't tell if Pro's interested in having a debate here. |
1 | ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00000-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Since I assume their opening statement was made in their R1 post, I will begin mine as well. I will be arguing against the idea that tenure for college professors should be abolished. I have three main claims: [Claim 1]: Tenure is a necessity [Claim 2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) [Claim 3]: Research supports tenure [C1]: Tenure is a necessity The concept of tenure dates back over 100 years ago to the early 20 century, when working in the field of education was much different than what it is today [1]. It was female-dominated, classrooms were larger, and working conditions were poorer [2]. Before tenure, teachers could be fired for any reason. If a teacher had the audacity to get married or, even more horrific, pregnant, the schoolboard could immediately fire her. Tenure and teachers' unions were created to guarantee some amount of job protection for teachers. They wanted the peace of mind to know their job wouldn't be terminated for seemingly no reason. At the high school level, most schools require teachers work at the same school for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, and there are many factors taken into account, with the most important one being a teacher's ability to teach. At the university level, I believe you have to have taught for 6 years before tenure consideration. Once a teacher is granted tenure, however, it does not mean they are immune from being fired. "Tenure protects academic freedom. In the absence of tenure, teachers may be fired for any reason. Teachers may be fired if the principal doesn't like them or if they are experienced and become too expensive. Teachers may be fired for being outspoken. [2]" In other words, tenure gives teachers a safeguard to be able to be more involved with the decisions being made at their school, as opposed to being complacent and accepting any and all changes. At the college level, this is incredibly important as professors want to challenge their students and (sometimes) have them confront and critique their already-established beliefs. When I took a Sociology course my senior year of university, our professor warned us of an upcoming lecture the following week where she was going to discuss religion and look at many of the popular ones under a critical lens. I thought this was a strange warning, as anyone whose convictions are strong enough should be fine with having their beliefs challenged. To my surprise, however, many students' parents would contact her to complain. Tenure in this situation protects the professor from being fired simply because a student didn't like one of their lectures. [C2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) There are a lot of myths surrounding the idea of tenure, which is primarily the reason why I accepted this debate in the first place. Some people, for example, think that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security forever and can therefore sit back and be a less effective teacher with no criticism whatsoever. This is absolutely not true. Again, tenure grants teachers job security and the inability to be fired without due process. Ineffective (or "bad") teachers can still be terminated. However, I think firing someone with no intervention or professional development workshops to help them is a bit harsh. Tenure (especially at the university level) is something that needs to be earned from the hardest-working teachers after a long and arduous process. They have to have committed some amount of research outside their teaching hours, demonstrate very strong teaching abilities, among many other factors. Tenure does not "protect" "burnt-out" teachers either. "How many students have complained about a teacher they see as too strict or "boring" - only to realize later in life that this teacher made a profound difference in their lives? Research shows that there is no one style that equates to effective teaching - which underscores why a fair hearing is needed before the imposition of a serious consequence such as firing a teacher who has demonstrated years of effective teaching. [3]" [C3]: Research supports tenure Not only have we established tenure does not help bad teachers keep their job, but there is abolutely no research that suggests students perform worse on standardized tests when taught by a tenured teacher, nor is there evidence that supports perform better with non-tenured teachers [2]. Not only this, but tenured teachers and professors also feel to have a higher obligation to be involved in school-making decisions. "Research finds that when teachers have a say in how schools are run, they are more likely to be invested in the school and to stay longer, and are more engaged with colleagues in cooperative work. [4]" In conclusion, tenure is a necessary provision for good teachers and promotes a stronger school culture, thus increasing academic achievement, not hindering it. The myth that tenure protects ineffective teachers is simply untrue. I await Pro's response. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.peoplesworld.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nysut.org... [4] . http://www.aft.org... |
21 | a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00009-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate. ______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising. DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans. Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS. Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc. )11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks of the topic are not accepted. As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate! |
30 | 2e55489a-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00000-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | more guns means more overall homicide the evidence I cite says more guns, more homicides. that means those laws at best can make the bad presence of guns not so bad. guns are causative, so they are not good to begin with. " The evidence you cite says more guns more firearm homicides. The evidence I sight says more guns less total homicides. This can occur when people who would commit homicide have access to a gun and decide to use that as their method rather than another method as it is easier however without the gun they still would have killed. This means that guns are good as they decrease the homicide rate. "the laws might deter criminals, but it doesn't ensure only good people get guns." You are correct I should have worded that differently. What I meant by that is that concealed carry laws ensure it is only good citizens who can legally get access to and carry concealed guns. "the evidence I cited shows that overall homicides go up with more guns. that means people aren't just killing with different weapons otherwise the rates would be the same." As I've stated earlier the evidence you cited shows that firearm homicide goes up with more guns not overall homicide The following re quotes from your sources " that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." " there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths" " the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be." ""for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9" percent. " The following are quotes from my sources First I would also like to point out that concealed carry law is relevant because passing concealed carry laws increase the amount of guns and allow people to carry their guns with them as most people would not want their gun just out in the open as it would look suspicious and possibly scare people. now onto the quotes: "Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center." "Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker." "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly." "In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average." "In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole." While this does not pertain to homicide directly it shows that people are less likely to commit a crime such as homicide when citizens are armed. "In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful." While this does not pertain to homicide directly it shows people are less likely to successfully carry out a crime such as homicide against an armed person. "On July 9, 2013, a bill to recognize Illinois gun owners" right to carry concealed firearms was passed by both chambers of the state Legislature. There were 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013 " a 9 percent drop " and 55 fewer murders than 2012, police said." "Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it"s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland." ""Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases." "The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun " a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite " but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain: Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent." |
12 | f3722e75-2019-04-18T14:16:26Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA |
3 | 4a8bdbbd-2019-04-18T17:13:51Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming. Was the mutation that allowed E.coli to ingest citrate a new set of information as my opponent claims? Well, E.coli"s DNA already had the citrate transporter gene citT. This gene encodes a protein which transports citrate into the cell. The mutation merely duplicated the part of the DNA which contains this citT gene. The duplicated citT gene was not hemmed in by the same regulatory control of the original citT gene, and this allowed it to code the protein to transport citrate under normal oxygen levels. (Zachary Blount, et al., "Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population," Nature 489 (2012): 513-518) So instead of creating new information, this experiment merely duplicated already existing information and used this information outside the restrictions of the normal regulatory system. Duplicating AB doesn"t give you new information, it just gives you AB all over again. Using old information for a new purpose doesn"t make it new information, so again, these mutations created nothing new. In fact, I can"t even say for a new purpose, because E.coli already had the ability to ingest citrate, merely under different circumstances. So we don"t have new information, nor do we even have a new function! In fact, the fact that the original citT gene was only expressed under low oxygen levels suggests that it may have suffered a loss of regulation, which brings us back again to recessive traits in the gene. Pro says that "No one who proposes this argument ever defines information for a coherent understanding." Michael Behe gives a nice explanation in his book, Signature in the Cell: "When scientists during the late 1940s began to define information, they did not make reference to physical parameters such as mass, charge, or watts. Instead, they defined information by reference to a psychological state"the reduction of uncertainty"which they proposed to measure using the mathematical concept of probability. The more improbable a sequence of characters or signals, the more uncertainty it reduces, and thus the more information it conveys.10 Not surprisingly, some writers have come close to equating information with thought itself. The information technology guru George Gilder, for example, notes that developments in fiber optics have allowed more and more information to travel down smaller and smaller (and lighter and lighter) wires. Thus, he notes that as technology advances, we convey ever more thought across ever less matter"where the numerator in that ratio, namely, thought, corresponds precisely to information.11 So should we think of information as thought"as a kind of mental chimera etched in stone or burned onto compact discs? Or can we define information less abstractly as, perhaps, just an improbable arrangement of matter? Whatever information is"whether thought or an elaborate arrangement of matter"one thing seems clear. What humans recognize as information certainly originates from thought"from conscious or intelligent activity. A message received via fax by one person first arose as an idea in the mind of another. The software stored and sold on a compact disc resulted from the design of a software engineer. The great works of literature began first as ideas in the minds of writers... Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as information invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons." Information is thought being transmitted. When you fax a letter from New York to Washington, the information you sent isn"t the paper and ink that comes out. Those are the medium, not the message. Something traveled between New York and Washington which is entirely separate from the mediums used to carry it. Similarly, "The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it." (DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution, by Mario Seiglie) Since information is the product of a mind, there must be an intelligence which programs this information into bacteria, cells, and DNA. Now Pro was the one who argued that "over 20 years of experimenting, 7,000 flasks and 45,000 generations had passed. For human equivalent it would roughly be a million years to the time of Homo erectus." What do evolutionists believe happened in the last million years? Well, that we made massive strides in evolution from homo erectus, to Neanderthals, to homo sapiens. That we changed in cranial capacity, skeletal anatomy, muscular strength, and way of life, all within a million years, so one would expect that after the equivalent of a million years, bacteria must have made far more evolutionary change. After all, bacteria are more adaptable to their environments than humans and animals; they can survive almost anywhere: "Bacteria were among the first life forms to appear on Earth, and are present in most habitats on the planet. Bacteria inhabit soil, water, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste, and the deep portions of Earth's crust. Bacteria also live in plants, animals", and have flourished in manned space vehicles." (Wikipedia: Bacteria) Yet, after 45, 000 generations, the equivalent to almost a million years of human evolution, all Lenski"s E.coli bacteria were able to do was learn how to eat a new food? No, not even that, because they already had the ability to ingest citrate. They merely developed the ability to ingest it under different conditions? If bacteria does so little after so long and after so many generations, how much less human beings? It goes to show that the real world is far different from the vivid imagination of evolutionists! What"s more, who is to say that blind, unthinking nature would have fed E.coli with a glucose-rich broth? Says who mother earth would have fed them this broth for the right amount of time? Says who mother nature would have protected her specimens from outside contaminants? The real world of nature is quite different from the controlled confines of a lab. Is the intervention of these scientists to guide the process towards the desired result really an example of natural selection, or intelligent selection? Pro then argues that speciation in the wild is more probable than in the lab, and one of the reasons he lists is "intricate struggles for survival," but that is the very reason why speciation is less probable in the wild, because in the wild there would be many more predators available to wipe out creatures before they could even evolve. Take his rabbit illustration to begin with. There definitely won"t be any foxes in the lab, but sooner or later he will catch that rabbit in the wild. At least he has a better chance of doing so if the rabbit isn"t protected in a lab. In the wild, his E.coli would most likely have other chemical elements surrounding it which could contaminate the specimen and prevent the mutations which would lead to its ability to ingest citrate. The lab had a scientist to feed it regular, specific amounts of glucose rich broth every day, but it most likely wouldn"t have access to such in the wild, or at least not on a consistent basis. We could go on and on; so to claim the wild is a more favorable environment for speciation than the lab is nonsense. Even the scientists I quoted in the fruit fly experiment admitted that "the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." Pro makes an argument from authority, that people with years of experience in their fields agree that the fossil record shows evolution, but first of all, many in their respective fields with equal years experience disagree with them. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (The Immense Journey, New York, 1957, p. 199) According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials." (June 25, 1981, p. 828) Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138) Pro gives a list from homo georgicus to ER 1470 as examples of human evolution, but are these two any more different from each other than Michael Jordan is to a pygmy? Yet, we don"t consider pygmies to be less human than Jordan, you or me; it"s just an example of variation within the kind. If georgicus and ER 1470 were alive today, the general public wouldn"t consider them any less human than the rest of us. It"s only the desperate minds of evolutionist that demean the human race by creating these distinctions to dehumanize our ancestors into some kind of inferior species. Pro goes on to claim that: "There is not a single plausible explanation for why see simpler organisms lower down in the different strata's, while we see more complex beings further to the top." Well, it"s because God created the so-called "simpler" organisms first. In the end, none of the organisms are "simple" at all, because the information content is just too high. There was no simple beginning, only in the minds of evolutionists. Pro didn"t explain how mutation could bypass the repair mechanisms of cells and DNA to evolve us in the first place, more later. Thanks |
10 | 26bc035c-2019-04-18T12:16:54Z-00006-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines are Dangerous! I will be arguing that vaccines are dangerous and have not been the blessing people think they are. Con will argue that they are safe, and that they work as well as we are told. Con may choose to use the first round as acceptance or use it to give his/her defense of vaccinations. Safe: not threatening danger Dangerous: involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss: able or likely to inflict injury or harm. https://www.merriam-webster.com... |
31 | 89a9646d-2019-04-18T13:18:18Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | DNA Phenotyping DNA testing is the latest fad to hit the health market. Companies like Navigenics are selling test kits that will supposedly tell you if you have increased risks for developing a number of diseases like Alzheimer"s, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, macular degeneration and many more. From there, you can make the appropriate lifestyle changes that will bring your risk back down. Sounds great doesn"t it? Well not so fast, there are real problems with this type of testing. First off, say you have a 20% greater risk for developing Multiple Sclerosis that the average person. That would make you concerned right? Well, according to this article from MSNBC.com, that only would lift your risk from .3% to .5% (3 out of every 1,000 versus 5 out of every 1,000, respectively). This is inconsequential yet the lab highlighted it which would cause unwanted concern for most lay people who are not geneticists or statisticians. Secondly, do we really understand what all the genetic variants mean? Does one abnormality really increase the risk for developing a disease or is it really a combination of interactions that is most important? It is my belief, which is backed by a lot of research and the opinions of a lot of people in the field, that we are truly in the infancy of genetic testing and that claiming that a genes configuration means that you are more likely to develop a disease. We don"t fully fathom all the subtle nuances that make up our genes. Next problem lies in those supposed markers that might indicate you have a lowered risk of developing a disease. Do you then not concern yourself with the possibility of getting sick? Lifestyle and environmental causes of disease are far, far more likely to cause a disease than a supposedly abnormal gene would. Another problem I have is when you use the myopic line of thinking that if you have a gene that increases your risk of developing a disease and turning it off is definitely a good thing. Do we know that by turning off the gene we aren"t increasing the risk of developing another more deadly disease? We don"t. Here is an extreme example of this problem. People with sickle cell anemia, a life-shortening disease actually protects the person with the genetic disorder from malaria. Think of living in equatorial Africa with the high levels of malaria. Many children would have died without the sickle cell protective gene. There are literally thousands of other examples, many we are not sure of. In the case of breast cancer, having the bad gene is one thing, but prophylacticaly removing ones breast is an extreme case of acting on the bad gene news. Environmental and lifestyle choices such as depressed vitamin D, exposure to toxins, smoking, and alcohol intake vastly increases your risk of developing the disease, more so than the gene. If you choose to do these things, do you remove your breasts to reduce the risk of developing the disease? Of course not. Having the gene increases your risk but working to increase your vitamin D3 level, avoiding toxic exposure and detoxing regularly, not smoking and reducing or eliminating your alcohol intake would be more beneficial and would actually lower the risk to those women with the gene. In a nutshell, lifestyle choices have a greater impact on overall health than genetics. This is the concept of metabolomics, but that is a whole other blog. |
26 | 40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00048-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | No Child Left Behind Act NCLB raises standards and testing without improving education |
36 | e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Bowling is a sport. Don't worry about it; and good luck to you as well.I will begin by saying that bowling is a fine game, but it is not a sport.1. Bowling requires a high degree of skill."Next, proper balance, footwork, and form must be followed on every throw. While muscle strength or running speed are not necessary, other physical skills are still needed, which fits in the definition of a sport. For mental skills, every throw must be nearly perfect, especially on difficult oil patterns; anything off with your approach can cause you to miss a key spare or strike. Missed throws can be extremely distracting and kill confidence. Therefore, bowlers must have an extremely high degree of mental focus and preparation. All of these factors prove professional bowling requires specialized skill."There are many activities that require specialized skills, both mental and physical, that would most definitely not be considered a sport. For example: Growing roses for a Rose Competition. While muscle strength and running speed are not necessary, other physical skills are still needed. When preparing the plot of land where you will grow your roses, you need the physical ability to carry heavy bags of fertilizer. You need proper physical form to turn the soil and create your rows with efficiency. Mental skills are also necessary, you must decide on the right proportions of soil additives and choose the exact day to plant your rose bushes. Precision is needed in order to choose the right rose, and more importantly the optimal moment to pick the rose to achieve the best results you can. So; although competitive rose growing require specialized skills, it is not a sport.2. Bowlers can be considered athletes."I consider an athlete to be someone who trains themselves in order to get optimal personal performance in their chosen sport. A football player must train to become better, which is through strength training and drills. Also, all bowlers train themselves to become better. While they don't need overpowering strength, they must train their muscle memory, their balance and coordination, and their mental game. This can take years of practice and training to achieve optimal performance."Just because someone is an athlete does not necessitate that the activity they have trained in is a sport.Anyone who decides to climb a mountain must train to achieve the strength, agility, balance and coordination needed to accomplish their task. They also need to prepare their mind to handle the stress and exhaustion they will encounter. It can take years of experience and training to climb higher peaks and reach their performance goals.Climbing a mountain takes incredible athleticism; however, mountaineering is not a sport.For anyone interested in training to climb a mountain, a training program is outlined on the website for American Alpine Institute at the following link.http://www.alpineinstitute.com...3. Organized, professional competition."Every sport has some organizational structure, such as an overseeing organization, or professional leagues or circuits."I will go back to my rose growing analogy.World Federation of Rose Societies is the organization overseeing rose growing. According to their website; "The World Federation of Rose Societies is a federation of the national rose societies of 39 countries around the world, representing more than 100,000 rose lovers. Our goal is to expand contact among them and increase the flow of knowledge about the rose." http://www.worldrose.org...One example of a league or circuit for rose growing would be the American Rose Society. You can get information on upcoming events on their website.http://www.ars.org..."It is impossible to say the name of a sport without some professionals playing it." Just because an activity has participants that are professionals does not make it a sport. Professionals are merely people who get paid to do a specified activity. Dentistry is chock full of professionals, this does not make dentistry a sport. 4. It's more than just a "game""All sports are games. However, all games are not sports, and a game doesn't necessarily require a degree of skill. In a game such as Monopoly, a person who has played the game 100 times before can lose to a person playing for the first time. This is not the case with bowling. A skilled professional will never lose to a first time bowler from the street. This also refers to the "requiring skill" argument." I agree with your initial statement "All sports are games. However, all games are not sports, and a game doesn't necessarily require a degree of skill"However, I disagree with your implication that any game that requires a degree of skill is a sport. This I can easily illustrate with the example of chess; chess is a game that requires skill to be played properly, but is not a sport. Barring any wildly unlikely circumstances, a skilled chess player will not lose to a first time chess player from the alley.Requiring skill does not transform a game to a sport. Those are the reasons that your arguments did not prove that bowling is a sport.I will now outline why bowling is not a sport.1. A sport requires direct competition against two or more competitors.Any activity that you can get the full experience out of by yourself, is not a sport. I can bowl a full ten frames, several times, alone in an empty bowling lane, and receive the full effect of bowling. Clearly, I got all the physical and mental exercise of bowling. I also received a competitive aspect by striving to beat my own score; however, I didn't get any direct competition from another participant.Therefore; since the activity of bowling does not contain the required aspect of direct competition, it is not a sport.I will close this round of debate by showing that you already know that bowling is not a sport. You affirmed my claim that bowling lacks enough direct competition to be considered a sport in your first argument."Professional bowling requires an extremely high degree of skill, both physical and mental. This is different than going out to a bowling alley with some friends to drink beer while you throw the ball at the pins for fun. That activity is comparable to playing catch with a baseball, and baseball is universally accepted as a sport. Those activities are not truly competitive, and are not 100% of what the sport fully entails."The analogous comparison to playing catch with a baseball would be to roll a bowling ball down the street. You are only doing a portion of the activity. It is immaterial if bowling requires a high degree of skill, or not. A sport is able to be played by anyone who; knows the rules, has the equipment, access to the proper setting, and the requisite amount of participants. It isn't true that children playing sandlot baseball aren't playing the 'sport of baseball' simple because they can't perform at the level of professional baseball players.Regardless of how skilled the participants, or how seriously they take the activity, a sport is a sport. A sport isn't only considered a sport when it is played at a high level. If, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. Thank you. |
15 | 7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals should be used for testing Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species. |
1 | ba23d7ad-2019-04-18T18:14:00Z-00000-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Islam Is a Religion of Peace: part II "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets. " – Muhammad "Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. " Muhammad enjoys the spoils of war, 1/5th of all the loot. "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. " – Muhammad "Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the "jizya" (poll tax) with the hand of humility. " –Muhammad "When we decide to destroy a population, We send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. " –Muhammad "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. " – Muhammad "I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies. " -Hadith, Muhammad Established point 1: The Burden Pro said: "…my Burden of Proof is to prove that "Islam is an intrinsically peaceful religion that desires the cessation of war or violence against anyone. " Obviously, war cannot always be prevented, but if Islam can be proven to seek peace, I win. " I agree. If Islam can be proven to seek peace, you win. Let's review what you have established in your own words thus far: a. > "Neither in the other Abrahamic faiths is God's purpose to bring peace. All three state a purpose of worship; Islam is not exclusive. " b. > "Obviously, war cannot always be prevented. " c. > "The first kind of Islamic war is for self-defense. " d. > "Rules of War (2:190, 2:191,2:192,2:193). " My opponent may redefine peace over, and over, and over again. In the end peace is as separated from war, as the east is from the west. It would be peaceful to flee from conflict rather than to engage the enemy. Peace is not just a state of existence, peace is a method. Since Islam does not seek peace through peace (but rather engages enemies with war) we simply cannot conclude that "a cessation from violence and war" is synonymous with its teaching. Argument discredited. Established point 2: The 99 names of Allah My opponent introduced new arguments in his final round by establishing that one of the 99 names of Allah means "Peace". I hope myopponent will not mind if I illuminate the folly of this submission with four more names given to Allah. Al-Ḥasīb - The Bringer of JudgmentAl-Mumīt -The Destroyer, The Bringer of DeathAl-Muntaqim - The Avenger Argument discredited. Established point 3: "The List" My opponent has provided a huge list of verses to convince you that Islam is peaceful and that Allah seeks peace. I ask the voter: What good are 99 verses of temperance and peace if the 100th verse demands the blood of another human? Is the last verse any less of a God-breathed mandate than the first 99, to the devout Muslim? Do the other 99 verses stop the Muslim from exercising the last verse and bringing the sword? Is that what we see on a massive scale in this world? Absolutely not! For all of the merits of Islam, we cannot ignore the war it teaches. There are 164 verses on Jihad alone. Nobody, except perhaps those whoapproach the Qur'an like and Ostrich (head firmly planted into the sand), can claim that Allah seeks peace from men, between men or for any man that is not already moved onto paradise. Allah seeks your worship, not your peace. Any peace is unintended. Had the fascists conquered Europe, they too would eventually runout of enemies. Would you call them peaceful just because they ran out of enemies? My argument is extended. Islam seeks the glory of Allah, not peace with men. Final Conclusion: It was my burden to show that Islam is not a peaceful religion. I showed that: 1. > Islam's only purpose is to glorify Allah through worship, a point my opponent concedes. (And I didnot create the jinn and humankind except to worship Me… [Quran 51:56-58]) This scripture clearly shows that mankind has a single purpose: worship, not peace. 2. > Islam teaches that war is good for the believer, even if the believer does not want war. That means, Islam teaches the Muslimsto fight even if the war violates their conscience. My opponent does not reject this claim; he simply amplified it by stating that such wars are justifiedthrough self-defense. Any doctrine of religion that teaches it's believers to ignore their moralconscience and kill in the name of their God, is not peaceful. 3. > True peace is the spirit of non-violence. The list of religions that qualify as peaceful are Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism in accordance with Ahimsa. 4. > I have provided an unchallenged example which shows the aftermath of war, a concept my opponent would call "peace". I have shown that war leads to occupation, plundering, raping and genocide. Consider the aftermath of WW2 on the German women. The rape of over one million womenwas during the time of "peace" that war acquired. The Muslim fighter, according to the Qur'an, is allowed to loot and take slaves as trophies of conquest. |
16 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00004-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | unknown Salom, munozara qilmang. Men sizlarga qarshi bahslashmoqchiman. Aytmoqchi, bu spammer nima deb o'ylaysiz? Qanday axmoq. Siz aytmaysizmi? Siz katta tanada kichik odamsiz. u ham katta odamni kichik narsalarni aytishi mumkin. Katta kichikliging kabi. Katta kichik. jsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bywYBTybioy*$BYG89YQBYAWOBY8TBA3BYT80A4WBOITOaYWOuoYT48u9utyrjkvorjh895otjj9H8U9UH8J9IH8SJFIHSGajoiioheugberijgrehimrwnuhgjie5kyjieopyr6r6j6rgeh6jhr5hT^&jp[6r[.7j7tJ{&tJ{t7']j6;r[;u=t-7;[ur6;[h6prk[u[6ply5=0y054h9yujsafid08fsd9a809w03j404309u3n0*#Ty849uwntu(#Yt49a8f7b(&BYBY*BY$YT8by94bt89#BU89yb98byT8Y389yb8t9bv |
35 | 9fe06406-2019-04-18T14:16:46Z-00004-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices Part One is the problem.A new face of childhood terror is sweeping across the metaphorical playground. Bullying has taken on an entirely new approach. No longer is the face of bullying a few thuggish kids on the playground demanding your lunch money, but a more insidious form of bullying from which there is no safe refuge, no escape from the torture. Webster[1]: Cyberbullying refers to bullying through ... technologies ... such as ... text messages, emails, phone calls, internet chat rooms, instant messaging – and ... social networking ... Cyberbullying is a fast growing trend that ... is more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying. Nearly all of us can be contacted 24/7 via the internet or our ... phones. Victims can be reached anytime and anyplace. For many children, home is no longer a refuge from the bullies. "Children can escape threats and abuse in the classroom, only to find text messages and emails from the same tormentors when they arrive home." And, this is a problem that's impossible to escape from and impossible to find help for. Victims are afraid to ask for help from their parents or school officials because of the backlash or inability for school officials to help. Agatston et al.[2]:' Students indicated that the majority of the incidents occurred outside of the school day, with the exception of cyber bullying via text messaging. Students indicated that they were unlikely to report cyber bullying to the adults at school, as it ... occurs via ... phone use, and it is against the school policy to have ... phones on during school hours. ... Students also indicated that they did not think the adults at school could help them if they were experiencing cyber bullying. ... students also indicated that they were reluctant to report cyber bullying to parents because they feared the loss of online privileges Keith and Martin[3] furthers: Part of the problem in combating cyber-bullying ... is that parents and kids relate to technology very differently. ... adults approach computers as practical tools, while for kids the Internet is a lifeline to their peer group. "Cyber-bullying is practically subterranean because it lives in the world of young people," ... Kids ... fear ... not only that the parents' response may make the bullying worse, but that the adults will take the technology away." And, solving cyberbullying is difficult to do. Anonymity is the bully's primary and most effective weapon, from which there is no escape. Keith and Martin 2: It can be much more difficult to identify bullies in cyberspace. ... screen names ... hide a person's true identity. It is easier to bully someone you don't have to face. With no boundaries or tangible consequences, children are using technology to vent ... frustrations in ways that can become very destructive. ... home was a place where a kid could go to escape ... With advances in technology, home is no longer a haven. ... today's bullies use technology to spread rumors and threats, making life miserable ... throughout the day and night. ... They cannot escape their bully because he can now follow them home. This is the new reality. Part Two is the Impacts:Cyberbullying is a serious mental health issue. It creates psychological problems and compounds already existing psychological issues. DeHue et al.[4]: ... being cyberbullied can ultimately result in serious physical, social, and psychological problems, such as serious depressive symptoms and stress. ... It has also been reported that youngsters with depressive symptoms experience more emotional stress as a consequence of being cyberbullied than do youngsters with less or no depressive symptoms. And, these psychological problems have multiple impacts on adolescents. Weisz et al.[5]: Depression in ... adolescents ... is a significant, persistent, and recurrent public health problem that undermines social and school functioning, generates severe family stress, and prompts significant use of mental health services ... Youth depression is also linked to increased risk of other psychiatric disorders ... as well as drug use and suicide ... which is the third most common cause of death among adolescents ... by the age of 18 years, some 20% of youths will have met criteria for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder at least once ... Prospective longitudinal research has shown substantial continuity of youth depression into adulthood, with impaired functioning in work, social, and family life, and markedly elevated risk of adult suicide attempts and completed suicide ... And, in the status quo, adolescents aren't getting the help they need to recover. Day and Flynn[6]: The paucity of mental health services means that many children, adolescents, and their families do not receive the psycho-therapeutic treatment that they need. The consequences fo this may be mental illness in adulthood and genearational psychological disturbance and abuse. If ignored, these social and psychological problems do not simply go away. Indeed, they are likely to increase the demands on adult mental health services ... children who have symptoms of depression and anxiety are referred less frequently to mental health serviecs ... yet we know that children and adolescents with symptoms of depression are three times more likely to make a suicide attempt or be hospitalized ... Part Three is the Solvency:The plan text is this: The USFG will grant adolescents the medical autonomy to seek treatment for mental health issues without parental concent if necessary. Autonomy is the key to treatment. Without it, adolescents won't go get treatment. Driggs[7]: Confidentiality is also an issue in the treatment of mental health problems. Some states have recognized the fact that many minors might not seek help with problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and other psychiatric care if parental consent were required. These exceptions to the general rule are considered by some to be an outgrowth of the emergency treatment for minors and the states' role in the protection of minors ... studies indicate ... factors such as family stressors and parental psychopathology may play a part in the mental health care decision. These exceptions are nto absed on the level of maturity of the minor, but rather are based on on the issues of the possible transmission of venereal disease, in increase in teenage pregnancy, and confidentiality. And, treatment effectively solves the problem. Mallot and Beidel[8]: Most studies and meta-analyses examining treatment outcome reveal consistent support for exposure-based congnitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). In fact, the outcome data are so consistently positive that CBT is recognized as the treatment of choice for adolescents with anxiety disorders ... the core element of CBT are seen as equally applicable to separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and GAD as these disorders share many features and appear to be distinct from other anxiety disorders. Sources:[1] - http://www.cyberbullying.info...[2] - http://arvin.kernhigh.org...[3] - http://bienestaryproteccioninfantil.es...[4] - http://www.researchgate.net...'_experiences_and_parental_perception/links/00b49514a0e932ab87000000.pdf[5] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] - Day, Lesley, BA, MSc (Econ), MSc (Psychotherapy), head of services @ Cassel Hospital, adult psychotherapist, prof @ Brunel University, and Flynn, Denis, Consultant psychotherapist, trained philosopher and social worker, eds. Internal and External Worlds of Children and Adolescents : Collaborative Therapeutic Care. 2003. ProQuest.[7] - Ann Eileen Driggs, R.N., J.D., "The Mature Minor Doctrine: Do Adolescents Have the Right to Die?" Health Matrix, Vol. 11:687[8] - Michael A., pf of psychology @ UCF, and Beidel, Deborah C., pf of psychology @ UCF. "Anxiety Disorders in Adolescents." in Comprehensive Evidence Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents. 2014. Wiley. |
30 | be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00004-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Right to carry arms I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck. |
31 | e5e50ee1-2019-04-18T14:11:28Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | High-carb diets are ideal for health. Outline I. Summary thus far II. Rebuttal of Con III. Final summary IV. Links I. Summary thus far So far Con has almost exclusively attacked complex carbs and refined sugars. While effectively narrowing down the healthy choices, this does little to impact the resolution since fruits and vegetables contain high amounts of the macro nutrient carbohydrates. Con only attack on fruit and vegetables are wide swipes at carbohydrates in general. At the same time Con makes a Pro argument stating that fruits and vegetables are natural and necessary for vitamins. Yet, fails to demonstrate the parameters of how much fruits and vegetables are healthy eaten. Meanwhile Pro has shown the health benefits of fruits and vegetables. Including phytonutrients, anti-oxidants, fiber, and vitamins. While showing that fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and excess animal protein are detrimental to health. These arguments made by Pro can be found in round 2. These facts show that not only are the high-carbohydrate foods known as fruits and vegetables good for health, but that high fat and high animal protein foods are bad for health. Next Pro and Con agree humans are omnivores, yet debate where on the sliding scale humans fit as an omnivore. Pro contends that humans are closer to herbivores than carnivores. Con contends that humans are closer to carnivores than herbivores. Pro shows through five factors teeth, saliva, stomach Ph, small intestine length, and transit times that humans are closer to herbivores. Con relies upon two factors the number of stomachs humans have and how long herbivores spend chewing grass. II. Rebuttal of Con "1. Processed sugar is bad for you. White sugar is the worse, brown sugar better, molasses better still and treacle best." Con Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that processed sugar is good for you. "Fruit is good for you until you juice it then it becomes too much for the digestive system and if the fibre has been removed it is bad." Con Agreed, without the fiber there is too much of a blood sugar spike. Besides fiber is good for you. Warrant: See round 2. "Most herbivores have 4 stomachs." Con Bare assertion. "The point being, that there is a big difference between the average herbivore and a human." Con Claim based upon a previous claim which is a bare assertion. "Humans and most carnivores have heaps of leisure time in comparison to herbivores which spend most of their waking hours grazing." Con Bare assertion. Claim: Deer are herbivores Warrant: " Type: Mammal Diet: Herbivore Average life span in captivity: 6 to 14 years Size: 6 to 7.75 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m) Weight: 110 to 300 lbs (50 to 136 kg) Group name: Herd Did you know? "White-tailed"" [35] Claim: Deer have time to play around. Warrant: Seen with my own eyes. Impact: Deer are herbivores that seem to have plenty of time to play around and not graze all the time. Thus, weakening Con's claim that carnivores have heaps of time in comparison to herbivores. "Humans are closest to carnivores with similar sized intestines and stomachs." Con Bare assertion. "Eating meat is the fastest way to get a lot of leisure time." Con Bare assertion. "When you eat vegetables, it requires a lot of preparation and mucking around." Bare assertion. Claim: Romaine lettuce is a vegetable Warrant: "Vegetables Lettuce Romaine" [36]. Claim: Romaine lettuce can be eaten raw with little to no prep work. Warrant: Common knowledge, performed claim on several occasions. Impact: Contrary evidence to Con's claim, thus disproving the notion. Not all vegetables take a lot of preparation and mucking around. "You have to cook vegetables before you can eat them because the human gut can't digest cellulose." Con Bare assertion. Note Cons claim is true nevertheless, yet cellulose is fiber and fiber is healthy. Warrant: [37] Impact: The fact that cellulose is indigestible is good for human health. "No, he has avoided discusing this issue because he knows that high carb diets lead to many health problems and diseases." Con As I stated in round 1 you can eat an unhealthy high-carb diet. Nevertheless, you can also eat a healthy and ideal high-carb diet. If you wanted to criticize the resolution round one and two were the time for that. In brief, a high-carb diet can cause disease. A person can consume only high-carb junk food. Yet, this doesn't mean all foods containing carbohydrates are unhealthy. Con's second half of round 4 is most likely plagiarized.[38] Starting with this sentence "1. Artificial sweeteners: Aspartame (i.e. Nutrasweet) and Sucralose (i.e. Splenda)," Most of the text is just copied and pasted from the Bonfire link. Con could be the author. Con also failed to give credit to the author in round 2. Even so, I will refute the copied text. Pro almost entirely agrees with all eleven points. Pro only disagrees with points 8 and 9. "8. Pasteurized and homogenized milk and milk products (butter, ice cream, yogurt, etc.) " cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. Butter and heavy cream from organic pasture-fed cows is the exception. 9. Sugar " leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity. We must look at refined sugar as the poison it truly is." Con 8. Organic pasture-fed cows will not make the difference. There is still animal protein, fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol in these products. [39]. As show in Pro's round two over-nutrition of these substances is detrimental to human health. Not only that but milk contains, you guessed what? Sugar, which Con has condemned. This is hypocritical on Con's part to state sugar is unhealthy and then to state a food with sugar in it is healthy. 9. Again, with the broad sugar hating. Yet, recommending milk which contains 13g of sugar [38]. Also recommending fruit and vegetables which contain sugar while criticizing sugar in general. III. Final summary It is unclear whether Con thinks sugar is good or bad. Con both praises and condemns sugar. In contrast Pro continually contents that whole fruits and vegetables are ideal for health. Pro makes no sweeping statements about sugar being bad. Instead, Pro decides by individual foods. For example, Pro thinks whole fruits and vegetables are good, yet makes the distinction that fruit juice is unhealthy. Overall, Pro's resolution and round two argument still stands. Con relies upon many bare assertions, blatant plagiarism, condemning all carbohydrates , and conspiracy theories about an anti-fat campaign. Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading, and vote Pro. IV. Links 35. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... 36. http://www.burpee.com... 37. http://www.scienceclarified.com... 38. http://bonfirehealth.com... 39. http://nutritiondata.self.com... |
42 | 7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00001-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; "as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players " slightly more than one of every five in the league " are injured." These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey. |
14 | 3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00001-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple. |
10 | e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr� Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barr� syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies. |
18 | 2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches should be taxed. Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book "To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'double taxation' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy."[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: "Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate." Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches "making millions" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com... |
14 | 59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00002-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | There's no such thing as being born GAY! Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes "ALL" GAY people and uses the term "SOME" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY." I have another study to prove my point, as even though the specific page does use generalizing words, others do not. A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization". [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which can result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that the orientation of a person occurs before they are born than afterwards. In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed. It was viewed as being possessed by evil. Now, scientifically, we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, a study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth. "Second you specifically stated verbatim that "No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON." I would like to point out this was taken out of context, as I did conclude to say that it was not common for people to express if they were homosexuals because it was inherently looked down upon. I did not intend for my point to be taken out of context and that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I intended for that to mean it was uncommon because of society, it was not something someone willingly came out to say. "Being GAY is none other than an example of "HERD BEHAVIOR" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on." My multiple sources of evidence off of my first point proves that sexual orientation is not because of herd behavior. It is because of the brains development. My statement about how homosexuality was looked down upon proves that even if people were gay, there would be no way to know. Even if we did disregard that comment, the evidence proves people are born gay. If we do or do not know if ancestors were gay, it really does not matter. Looking at current evidence and data, it is hereditary and biologically, and would negate your statements otherwise. This is definite proof. "Also these "Same-sex" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything." I need sources. I cannot assume your sources are reliable. I need actual evidence and sources. However, all of the same- sex behaviors you mention and what they demonstrate fully prove my point. It is ingrained in their minds. Also, my opponent has contradicted a previous argument of saying most instead of all, when my opponent did it themselves, by saying "...most species have not been fully studied..." Without a quantified amount, I cannot trust this statement as being reliable. Looking back at the previous round, a close species to humans, bonobos, have been studied and have same- sex behaviors. This is not guessing. This is solid and proved evidence. "First you said verbatim that "there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proved to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will." If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual." Again, this was taken out of context and misunderstood. I was talking about a previous argument made, about people changing their sexual preference. Relating sexual preference to what I said, it makes sense that no one would be able to prove if someone was actually meant to be gay or meant to be straight by the methods we have today. It does not contradict my point at all. If we had that evidence today, this would not even be a debate today. However, on newly watched studies with children I provided earlier, that is how we can prove if someone is gay. Someone cannot simply look at someone and assume if the person is homosexual. It takes a long- term study. This is the point I was trying to make. Lastly, homosexuality is about pride because homosexuality is a topic not all people are comfortable with. Even with contradicting religions and churches going against gays, it is about pride to stop gay stereotypes. Heterosexuality does not need parades or support because it is a relationship that is common. "There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots..." I am very confused about this statement. First, again, my opponent is contradicting themselves again. My opponents argumentation was I am using words like most, but my opponent is saying statements that are using generalizing terms. Since you state there are so many gay people, every person would need to carry this trait. I would like evidence for this statement. Right now, my opponent cannot prove this, as my opponent gave no quantified amount of how many homosexual people are in the world. In regards to your second statement, I am shocked. It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. Actually, you could never justify that statement even if you tried. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not actual choices and poor decisions people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist. I have tried to be as civilized and respectful as I can possibly be. I expect the same respect towards the gay community in return. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.rrcstaff.com... [4] http://www.viewzone.com... |
26 | 4ec50082-2019-04-18T19:15:30Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Public High School Students In The United States Ought Not Be Required To Pass SEE's To Graduate Alright, this should be fun =). I affirm; resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. My value today will be societal welfare. Societal welfare is the best value for this round, as the ultimate goal of a high school education is to prepare students to be functional, successful members of society. This is best achieved through the criterion maximizing positive social mobility. Social mobility is the degree to which an individual's family or group's social status can change throughout the course of their life through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. We can best achieve societal welfare by allowing individuals the most opportunities to improve their circumstances. To clarify today's round, I shall define standardized tests as the Garland School District (Texas) does: "Assessments…designed to be administered under specific, standard conditions, resulting in a uniformity in testing environments" C1: Exit Exams Negatively Impact Various Groups A) Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Standardized testing falls the hardest on those who live in poor homes. Family status is a large factor in student performance. Among last year's seniors, those who lived near the poverty line scored 300 points less on the SAT than students in high income homes. High income students managed a relative score increase of 260% compared to students living in poverty. Wayne Camara and Amy Schmidt of the College Board studied factors affecting student performance. They clearly show that middle class children are a third more likely to receive an A average, and twice less likely to receive a below C average than peers living in poverty. If a student had no parents who attended college, they were almost 50% less likely to receive an A average than if even one parent had gone to college. These findings are not unique to their study. In 2005, Columbia University found that by age three, children of professionals had vocabularies twice the size of children on welfare. By twelfth grade, these poor kids are four years behind the wealthy in reading and math. When subjected to a exit exams, disadvantaged kids will inevitably do worse as evidenced by the current bias on standardized tests like the SAT. Exit exams unfairly penalize the poor for factors out of their control – parental income and education. B) Gender lines Standardized tests are inherently more harmful to girls because of their mental approach to problems. Females tend to favor a systematic approach on tests. We hear from educational specialist Peter Sacks "Many scholars believe certain tendencies in the thinking styles…of girls…don't add up to [an]…efficient match for the speeded…pressurized nature of…multiple choice…aptitude tests. They tend to be more focused on the process of learning rather than scoring points in the gamey context of most tests. Girls tend to approach standardized tests with a deliberateness and carefulness that makes them less willing than males to guess at multiple-choice questions, which puts them at a disadvantage. Females taking standardized tests may tend to rely more on methodical skills…-organizing, synthesizing, analyzing-instead of shortcuts and tricks that males more frequently use." In short, females tend to think deliberately – a mindset not encouraged by exit exams. If subjected to one, they would suffer higher rates of failure not because of lack of knowledge, but because of their thinking style. We hear from Debra Viadero, referencing a Stanford University study. "The detrimental effects of the [exit exams] were harder on girls…than on boys. Girls experienced a 19-percentage point drop in graduation rates after the California High School Exit Exam…was implemented [one and half times that of males]." Again, we see exit exams harming a group, in this case because of the way that they think! Because of the methodical way they approach standardized tests, females tend to fail more. C) Dropouts Implementing exit exams leads to an increased incidence of dropouts. This reduces the number of people exposed to the educational system, and precludes dropouts from the benefits of diplomas. As exit exams increase in difficulty, so do dropout rates. Glenn '06: "[University studies] reported that students in states with relatively easy exit exams are roughly 4 percent more likely to drop out of high school than similar students in states with no exams. In states with relatively difficult exit exams, students are 5.5 percent more likely to drop out. In states with more rigorous exit exams [some groups] are 7.3 percent more likely to drop out." Exit exams are strongly correlated with an increase in dropout rates. According to estimates by Professors Warren and Grodsky each percentage point means 35,000 students without diplomas. That means 192,500 students will be pressed into dropping out by high stakes exit exams. Almost 2,000,000 students will be pushed out of the system in 10 years. C2: High School Diplomas are Necessary for Social Mobility Individuals without diplomas have their job prospects and health compromised. Apart from being a huge factor in college admissions, diplomas are a necessity in the job market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2007 individuals without diplomas had a 20% lower employment rate (56%) than diploma-wielders. The Nashville Metro Schools projected that those who do not receive a high school diploma earn about $260,000 less than a contemporary with said diploma. As Columbia University adds, adults without diplomas are far more likely to depend on food stamps, welfare and public housing. Without diplomas individuals lose social mobility. There are three salient impacts here. First, when girls and the disadvantaged unfairly fail exit exams they experience dramatic negative social mobility. The few of them that manage to get jobs earn a quarter of a million less! ! Lacking the money they need to support themselves they have to turn to public options leading to a deterioration in health. They lose out in all aspects of life because of factors out of their control. Second, exit exams serve only to further entrench people in poverty. Students who come from poor backgrounds are far more likely to fail exit exams, and lose their own social mobility. A large number of students, of all backgrounds, will also be pushed to drop out. Their lower income and education will cause their children suffer the same difficulties. This harm of exit exams extends into the future negatively impacting coming generations. We are only creating further stratification in society – increasing the gap between the rich and poor. Finally, exit exams fall hard on females, because of their systematic thought process! Without diplomas they cannot secure places in college or the job market – leading to male dominance in society. Not only does this create a perceived ceiling for achievement, it will lead to a societal view of females as subordinates and reinforce negative gender stereotypes. Because exit exams are detrimental to society, I urge an affirmative vote |
14 | 4660b6af-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Toilet Paper Orientation I will further clarify the definition of 'superior' by claiming that 'quicker' should be determined as an expected value of average time spent extracting paper from the roll across the total of all your interactions with the roll for its full lifetime. I look forward to your arguments! |
28 | 94b67aa-2019-04-18T16:42:17Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized For the purpose of this debate the definitions in the resolution will be accepted as follows.Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Legalized - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Rounds will follow this structureMERound 1 : RulesRound 2 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 3 : Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsAdversary Round 1 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 2: Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsRound 3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon by my adversary will result in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round(2) 10k character limit(3) No sources may be posted that would extend that debaters arguments. (ie posting a link would extend your argument past 10k words)(4) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct with multiple FFs possibly leading to a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges. |
33 | ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. I explicitly specified in the instructions that rebuttals were suppose to be in the 3rd round and 4th round. The 2nd round was solely for main arguments without rebuttals. 1. Since when was my argument implying everyone to become a vegetarian? This debate is simply focused on how being a vegetarian helps the environment more than not being a vegetarian. -These implications in your argument, " If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat (Daniel_B)", are irrelevant to the topic. Besides, arguably if we just slaughtered a good portion of the populations of livestock and processed the meat without breeding more livestock, then that would not be an issue at all. 2. What are these "many ways" that you are referring to that would actually significantly help more so than lowering the water supply for livestock farming? -"As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians." California already has implemented fairly strict regulations now concerning private and public water usage because of the drought, so people are less likely to use as much. However, those policies are an insignificant aid to lowering water usage because of the amount of water that I discussed earlier that is used per pound of beef. 3. Your argument that vegetarians will eat unhealthy food is irrelevant because we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they"re unlikely to reap many health benefits (Daniel_B)". This is indeed irrelevant because as the topic statement says, "helps the environment more", not people more. 4. Your argument that vegetarians will have a lower nutrient intake is irrelevant because again, we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12 (Daniel_B)". Besides, certain types of meat have a high amount of fat and eating this meat too often can create a higher chance in cardiac diseases. Restating the main issue at hand though, the concern in this debate is over the environment and not people's diets. There are many other angles of arguments that could have been made, think carefully in your next input for this debate. |
49 | 431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. "2. There's already a fund for the body cameras." Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. "3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie." Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. "4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game." The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. "5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance |
16 | b6a1c1f1-2019-04-18T18:30:18Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | The US Drug war should be ended I'd like to start out by saying thank you for allowing me to debate this topic with you. It's my first one on here, so I'm going to start off with a bang. You say legalize drugs, but you don't give any specifics. First of all, legalize ALL drugs, or just specific ones? There are so many drugs out there, some with minor effects such as marijuana, some with major effects like PCP. Some are extremely addictive such as cocaine and heroine, some are based on how much you WANT to take, such as shrooms. As far as marijuana, yes, I would say legalize it. HOWEVER, there would need to be strict regulations implemented on the sale and use of it. For one, it would have to be regulated such as alcohol. There should be an age requirement, you should not be allowed to drive or operate vehicles under the influence, and it should be just as illegal to buy for or supply to minors as alcohol. Also, there should be a tax on it, just like there is for cigarettes and tobacco products. That money should go towards the national deficit. NOW, for the rest of them; As you stated in your reply to me, you state that people should be able to melt their bodies as they want. You can't just look at the individual perspective of this. Once someone gets hooked on drugs, they'll do anything to get a fix. Families will be destroyed, crime will go up, not to mention the rest of the people who would have to deal with the results of someone who's high. Have you ever seen in real life or a video of someone on PCP? They're out of their mind, and it takes a lot of force to restrain them. Would you want to be at Wal-Mart when someone who's on a trip starts tearing down the aisle, putting you or your family in danger? You can't just look at the person on the drug, you have to look at how it will affect everyone they interact with, and everyone who cares about them. There's a reason drugs aren't legal. The repercussions would be catastrophic. Crime would skyrocket, families would be destroyed, and the country would rapidly deteriorate at such a rapid pace that there would be no way to stop it. |
10 | 6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Not getting children vaccinated Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely. |
5 | dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00004-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social security should be privatized. Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems. |
6 | f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00004-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I would actually agree that higher education is outdated for the millennial generation, but I believe it is still necessary. The first point I shall make is that, while I agree that there is probably not much to gain from a college education since we have access to all of the information at our fingertips through the internet(though, I would argue that in many ways the internet has made us dumber; however if you're smart, you know how to find high quality articles on matters, such as using google scholar instead of plain google) the formality of going through a college education does have a lot of bonuses to it.1) What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. While what my opponent said that a college degree earns you less than it did in the past, it still is a fact that a college degree earns you more than a high school degree does today. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering: High school drop outs: $18,734 High school graduates: $27,915 College grads (with a bachelor's degree): $51,206 Advanced degree holders: $74,602" [1] Now, while a high school graduate will be able to earn more money upfront, whereas a college student will be spending a lot of time on college, probably after a few years of a college graduate being in the workforce will ballance out to the money that the high school grad earned. If you take these numbers(which are not what the person makes first out of college or first out of high school, so these numbers would be lower for that, but I'll use them anyways).Suppose you have person A who is going to college before doing any kind of work, and Person B who started working full time right out of high school. Person A is not earning anything while Person B is earning money. Person B, in 4 years(the amount of time the average college degree takes to earn) would earn $111,660. At this point, the college grad would then be able to start working in the work force, and they would be getting $51,206 a year. After another 6 years the college grad will have earned 307,236, while the high school graduate, in 10 years(4 years of working while person A was in school, and 6 years while both were working) of working will have earned 279,150. So, in the long-run, a college education will earn you much more. And that's not taking into account that as a college student, you can easily have a part-time job while going to school full-time. I did this myself and still retained excellent grades.I suppose Person A, however, may have a lot of college debt, which my opponent mentioned that higher education is very expensive. However, this is not true for every college graduate. Some had such good grades that they earned scholarships, others came from a family that was well off enough to afford to put them into college, and others went to a community college(which are much more affordable than 4 year universities) and then transfered to a 4 year university and saved a lot of money going that route. In addition, this is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.However, now that I looked into the average debt a college student has when coming out of college, it's $30,100[6]. This amount can be paid for by less than two years of work, since the average college student makes $24,000 more per year than a high school student. Sure, for the first year and half, they would in reality be making the same as a high school graduate since they have to pay off their debt, but after that they will catch up to the high school graduate in less than 10 years and surpass them in the amount of money they gained over the years.Here's another example where a college education would greatly benefit a person. Depending on what field a person goes into, they will earn a lot more than others too. So, people could easily choose the higher-paying careers. For example, I'm currently going to school to become a psychiatrist. This takes an addiitonal 4 years after a bachelor's degree to complete, usually. The average annual salary a psychiatrist has is $193,680.[2] A psychiatrist earns more than double the amount the average wage for advanced degrees, and doctors and other specialists are in the same boat. If more people were to consider going into the medical field, they would earn a lot more and it would definitely be worth it. There are also other fields which pay well as well. 2) College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. Now, if you take a high school graduate who learned everything online, there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in. Unless employers started giving some sort of examination on their field of work instead of requiring a bachelor's degree, a high school graduate who learned all of the necessary things for that career via online with no degree is at a disadvantage for getting that job, and probably will earn around the average a high school graduate makes. So, in order to make what my opponent proposes come true, where people could just self-educate themselves via the internet instead of a formal education, we would have to force employers to stop looking for college degrees from people and have them hand out some sort of examination to test if the person is qualified for the job. There's no guarantee employers would do this either, unless we forced them to. 3) College education helps you go into a career you really wantAs mentioned in the previous point, to get a specific career, it's often the case you need a college degree. Even if it's not earning enough to ballance out the fact that maybe you have some debt and that you weren't earning more money while you were going to college, it still means you got to go into a career you enjoy which you may not have been able to if you didn't have a college degree. RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. As for my opponent's argument that university causes depression and anxiety disorders, I would like to point out that the study they linked to says " The estimated prevalence of any depressive or anxiety disorder was 15.6% for undergraduates and 13.0% for graduate students" [3] while my opponent was slightly off for the numbers, that's not what my point is going to be about. Let's compare that to the anxiety and depression rates of the general population. In the general population 18.1% of adults have an anxiety disorder[4] while 6.7% of all adults have depression[5] for a combined total of 24.8% of the general population with either. In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. This is a good thing that the rate of depression and anxiety is lower amongst college students than the general population. It indicates that college is not as big of a stressor on people than events later on in life. Sources:[1] http://howtoedu.org...; [2] https://www.bls.gov...;[3] https://www.researchgate.net...;[4] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[5] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[6] http://ticas.org...; |
2 | b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. The FDA is actually proposing extending its authority to cover additional products that meet the definition of a tobacco product under the proposed rule: Tobacco Products Deemed To Be Subject to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Currently FDA regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Proposed newly "deemed" products would include electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not "smokeless tobacco," gels, and waterpipe tobacco. The definition of a "tobacco product" according to the FDA is any product "made or derived from tobacco" that is not a "drug," "device," or "combination product" (except for accessories of deemed tobacco products). Examples of tobacco products include; hookah, e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, novel tobacco products, and tobacco products that may be developed in the future. To read this definition for yourself go to http://www.fda.gov... (It is on page 7 of the document.) Nicotine overdose has increased in not just adults, but also children. CNN did a story on this. In February there were 215 poison center calls involving e-cigarettes which is an huge increase from one per month in September 2010. The sad thing is 51% of those calls involved children 5 and under. http://www.cnn.com... E-cigarettes fall under the definition of a tobacco product according to the FDA. Manny of the E-cigarette devices contain nicotine the drug found in tobacco along with other substances and some have been found to contain carcinogens. There is not enough evidence to support that these devices are safe for those exposed to them and therefore should be categorized the same as any cigarette. Meaning they should not be allowed in hospitals and other public places. |
31 | 636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity "It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats" The parents are, however, buying the majority of food that their children eat. "Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. " Their parents are the ones who buy the food that is available at home, so how could the children be 'soley responsibe'? "They can eat at school" The majority of schools have supplied healthy foods for students due to rapidly increasing rates of obesity; also, have you considered the many students who bring food from home? :) |
23 | 114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Should euthanasia be legal Like anything else there would be some legal safeguards for both ends of the event. If you wanted to have the job done professionally in an assisted method there would be a legal contract. As for youths no contract can be legal until the participant is at least 18 yrs of age. As for having a bad day not many people seriously consider suicide due to a bad day,week or what ever. Most people who seriously consider suicide have suffered for an extended amount of time and have reached a point where they just don't want to suffer anymore or feel that there is no other answer. I think for healthy people there should be a psychological evaluation prior to the legal documentation to have your life ended in an assisted way. I know the suicide of healthy people is morally tough to accept, still is should be that person's right. Just before Christmas I lost a cousin to suicide she suffered from depression for many years. It saddens me that she felt the way she did but on the other hand she ended her suffering which plagued her for years. It's bitter sweet. |
48 | 5f54eb74-2019-04-18T18:20:17Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered To 18. R2 is for case, so I will just post my case. 1. The higher drinking age saves lives We must ask, why does the higher drinking age aid society? Or does it have a bad or no effect. Many studies conclude 20,000 lives are saved from a higher (21) drinking age, and all due to the 21 drinking age. [1]"Drunk-driving crashes have been on the decline, and one reason for this is the drinking age. According to a new study conduced by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), the law that implemented a national uniform drinking age of 21 contributed to a declining percentage of alcohol-related teen traffic deaths. The study notes an 11 percent drop in these traffic deaths. " [2]"New Zealand recently lowered the drinking age based on many of the same arguments advanced by the Amethyst Initiative. The result was more alcohol-involved traffic crashes and emergency room visits among 15- to 19-year-olds. New Zealand is now considering raising its drinking age. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that setting the drinking age at 21 saves the lives of 900 young people each year and has saved more than 25,000 lives since 1975." [3]"Congress mandated in 1984 that states establish 21 as the drinking age in return for federal highway funding. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the 21 drinking age has reduced traffic fatalities involving drivers 18 to 20 years old by 13 percent and saves approximately 900 lives a year. Overall, the number of U.S. teenagers involved in fatal drunk-driving accidents has declined 11 percent because of laws that raised the legal drinking age to 21." [4]Sorry for quoting, just am tired and the quotes do it for me :P Here are a few facts: Lower drinkign age in Arizona lead to a a 25% more of a chance of a fatal car accicent and 35% chance of traffic fatalities [6] Lowering drinking age in massechuses lead to increased fatalities [4] In areas with a lower drinking age there was a 9% higher suicide rate linked to alcohol [4] 2. The younger you drink the worse problems you encounter 4 more time likely to get alcoholism and 2 times more likely to get addicted to those age 21 (18-12 comparison) [5] 12 times more likely to ge tinjured while using alcohol [4] 7 times more likley to get in a car crash while younger and drunk compared to 21 year olds. [4] 10 times more likely to get into a fight while drinking. [4] Further, the younger people begin to drink also may be linked to other illicit drug usages, as many studies showt the younger you drink the more likley you are to get involved with other harmful substances, many illegal. [4] Further, this applies as many are getting pregnant earlier, that the alcoholism and alcohol use when youngr has a higher chance of harming the bayby the person has. [4] So it not only harms them and their freinds, but maybe unborn people. Now, lets look at how it effect the youth. As stated, they are at increased risk for death, yes death, the lower the age they drink. [7] "Research has also shown that youth who use alcohol before age 15 are five times more likely to become alcohol dependent than adults who begin drinking at age 21. Other consequences of youth alcohol use include increased risky sexual behaviors, poor school performance, and increased risk of suicide and homicide." [7] I showed lower suidide rates for states with higher drinking ages, so we can assume there is lower users (my next point). This point is done, youths are not fully deveoped and a lower drinkign age would hurt them. 3. Lowers Users http://www.tobacco21.org...... http://www.tobacco21.org... We can see in 1977, drinking age 18, then in the 80s when states raised to 21 users declined. Also, making it illegal for minors to have alcohol creates a detterent effect. Summary: Younger people that use drugs face more of a chance of alcohol abuse [8] Younger people that do alcohol are more likely to do drugs and commit crime Higher rinkign age lowers DWI Arrests A higher drinking age lowers users Lower drinking age kills people by traffic fatalities and crime Higher age lowers traffic fatalities and suicide + crime CONCLUSION: See summary, then add the vote PRO and a higher drinking age is better. [1] http://www.madd.org... [2] http://www.ghsa.org... [3] http://articles.cnn.com...; [4] "Lower the Drinking Age?" Minnesota health department, p1, research papers, accessed: www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/chp/cdrr/alcohol/pdf/lowerthedrinkingage.pdf 21 [5] National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 1998.[6] Arizona Department of Public Safety, "An Impact Assessment of Arizona's Lowered Legal Drinking Ageand a Review of Previous Research," Statistical Center, 1981. [7] http://www.cdc.gov... [8] http://www.cspinet.org... |
34 | 4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00000-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking Well, you've heard it from my opponent folks, an open concession; needless to say, once you flow through my arguments from Round 2, and add that to her recent forfeiture, it's clear who you need to vote for in today's debate. Sometimes I really wish that I could take trophies off of people that I've beaten, like the way hunters take the head, or the foot, or the pelt of an animal that they kill. We should get one of those. |
12 | dd985bd6-2019-04-18T17:07:09Z-00005-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence Rebuttals: You stated, "With proper sex education, these infections could be safely prevented, or at least the rate will be significantly reduced, resulting in better sexual health." This is a kind of an assumption not supported by any evidence. You just presented statistics on young people involved in sexual intercourse, but never the relationship between sex education to safe sex. Furthermore, in your second point as stated "76.7% of teens did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex. In addition, more than half a million unplanned pregnancies occur to teens each year… What we can conclude is that we can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can control whether they are safe about it and know how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies." How can you say that we can control them in having safe sex in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies? This is another form of an assumption. Where is the study that shows the we can control as such? All you presented were just an fallacious assumption, or if not, claims not supported by evidence. PointsThere are many different groups across the United States advocating for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. They include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. These and other proponents of abstinence-only education argue primarily that sex before marriage is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.1 Many such groups emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can result in "serious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences."2 In addition, many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people.63 These advocates credit the decrease in teenage pregnancy largely to the advancement of the abstinence-only message.3 An article on the Concerned Women for America web site states that "[t]his is not simply an issue of morality, but a matter of public health. The problems that have become so entrenched in our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the debilitating effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. … As research clearly indicates, America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values."4 Abstinence-only proponents point to studies concluding that the abstinence-only education message has played a central role in the decline of adolescent sexual activity, and related negative health outcomes, over the last decade. One study reports that "…abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data."5Sources: [1] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001. [2] Ibid. [3] Abstinence Clearinghouse. Data confirms that the abstinence message, not condoms, is responsible for the reduction in births to teens [Internet]. May 17, 1998. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=168. Accessed October 16, 2001. [4] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001[5] Jones JM, Toffler W, Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils [Internet]. January 7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224. Accessed October 16, 2001. |
8 | 9d769a92-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Pro Legal Abortion Although the Supreme Court recognizes the "fundamental right" of a woman to choose abortion as an option since the Roe v. Wade case (1) failure to acknowlege the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life is evident. Since abortion was first legalized in 1973, over 54 million unborn children have been killed, whch is equivalent to one baby every 20 seconds (2). Abortion should not be an option for anyone because life is taken away from a person without their consent. What if that life could have went on the be a doctor and save lifes? What if that life could have found the cure for cancer? All those 'what if's' will never have an answer because the lives attached to them do not get a say in whether they will die or not. Many important and prestigous people throughout history are infact babies born from rape. These people include Eartha Kitt, Frederick Douglass, John Cox and Ryan Scott Bomberger (3). If their parents had not chosen to concieve these children, the world would have been without some very important historical figures. It is not just for someone to determine if the life of someone else is worth it, even if they have never met them before. Why should a mother decide whether a child should be able to live? Would you like it if someone else was able to decided if you should live or not? Ofcourse not, because it is not fair for the child. (1) http://www.foxnews.com... (2) http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... (3) http://www.rebeccakiessling.com... |
38 | e6cd693e-2019-04-18T19:16:47Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively As I said, the public option would have to make a profit to stay in business. The public option would be run by the government, however, the public option as proposed would be required to run a profit. By spontaneous I mean that it would have to run a profit as I said earlier. Just because the public option is run by the government doesn't mean it would receive funding. This is voided by earlier statements. This debate is about whether the public option is effective. Whether other ideas are is irrelevant I would also like to add the medicare and medicaid are both run by the government, and neither has driven an insurance company out of business. |
34 | f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States As, the voters you may see that my opponent did not extend his case but I will ask you to extend it for him. I will also ask you to extend my points. An once again to clarify I stand neutral on the resolution. But at the same time negate it as the word negate means to deny truth of, so by being neutral I am negating the resolution. |
18 | 8654c961-2019-04-18T19:40:50Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religous cult. In his rebuttal, he wrote: "The Church has yet to be totally established as either a church or cult…" Ah, yes, I admit my argument rather falls down there! I should have phrased the title in the future tense and I, therefore, concede this point. He continued: "Exciting is subjective. I personally don't like this idea, and I do not find it exciting. Thus, making a statement that it IS the most exciting is making a subjective belief objective. " I think believe my opponent is in a small minority in not finding the activities of the Church of Latter Day Hedonists' exciting and I will prove this as follows: The amount raised annually by the Church of England in legacies, special events, the letting of church halls, bookstalls, fundraising and parish magazines etc. is �250 million ($497 million) . http://www.cofe.anglican.org... The amount spent annually in the UK on grub, booze, baccy, music and porn (items essential to a hedonistic lifestyle) is �81,903 billion ($162,872 billon) . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... . http://www.guardian.co.uk... . http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com... In other words, the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists' activities are 328,000 times more popular than the Church of England's. The next tenant of my opponent's argument was that the United Church of the Latter Day Hedonists essentially already exists in the guise of the Church of Satan. I'd never heard of the Church of Satan so I checked it out – thanks to my opponent for the for the link. I can see that there are some superficial similarities between the two religions and I expect many Satanists will convert to Hedonism once we are properly established, but there are some important differences – for example we don't believe in "destroying" people that irritate us in some way and we don't believe in magic. Of course, the most important difference between the two religions is that the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists' primary function is to provide a handsome, tax-free income for the Supreme Leader (i. e. me). Many thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support and if any of my fellow debaters are interested in establishing a Hedonist Church in their local area, please let me know! Just think - you could earn mega-bucks tax-free, just for helping people have some guilt-free fun! |
13 | e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00007-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases res... In theory biofuels appear to reduce overall carbon emissions, but in practice they are much less environmentally friendly than their boosters claim. Although growing plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the whole process of turning a seed into fuel is very energy-intensive. Modern farming uses large inputs of fertilisers, as well as fuel for running machinery and transport. Turning a crop into biofuel that can be used in an engine also requires a lot of energy. All of this produces additional carbon emissions and means that biofuels are often not much better for the atmosphere than the fossil fuels they seek to replace, especially as more fuel needs to be burned to travel the same distance (because they are less efficient than fossil fuels). Some biofuel crops (e.g. sugar cane) do produce much more energy than is needed to grow them, but making ethanol from maize may actually take 30% more energy than it generates as a fuel – and it is maize-based ethanol that US policy is backing so heavily. |
36 | 3bad8f8-2019-04-18T14:19:46Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is Dance A Sport Well, it was an intense and exciting debate. I wonder if anyone is actually going to read it. |
46 | 2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00004-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality Pro seems to think we've had net neutrality for years. But that is simply untrue. The entire controversy surrounding net neutrality concerns proposed laws, not laws that already exist. [4] Unless Pro can cite a single net neutrality law that's existed for years, his entire argument falls apart. The reality is that we've never had net neutrality and the Internet has not only been fun but grown at an incredible pace. As PayPal founder Peter Thiel notes, "[n]et neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don"t see any reason why it"s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past." [5] -- Pro says "in many places you only have one [ISP] option." That's true, but the big companies aren't to blame. Local governments are the problem. "Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned 'rights of way' so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need 'pole attachment' contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground." [6] The result: "Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost." [6] ISPs try to enter new areas all the time. The problem is that entry costs -- not the laying wires part but the costs of negotiating with local governments -- are extremely high. That's something neither net neutrality nor antitrust laws will change. The irony of Pro's position is that it asks for MORE government regulation when government is ALREADY the biggest obstacle preventing competition among ISPs. The solution is getting local governments to allow the free market to do its thing. That's how you get more competition among ISPs, which in turn lowers prices. -- Pro claims that "people do nothing because they are bought off" and "there are many loopholes." But that's also not true. Pro gives no source for his claims because the claims are bunk. ISPs aren't bribing anyone. I'm not even sure who they'd bribe, but note that the only way bribes work is under a regulatory scheme, which is what Pro supports. I'm the one arguing that we let the free market do its thing, which means bribes wouldn't help anyone. As for loopholes, again I have no idea what Pro's talking about. If by loopholes, Pro's referring to the antitrust laws, there aren't really any loopholes in the law. You either show harm to consumers or competition, or you don't show harm to consumers or competition. It's economics all the way down. If you show harm, it's illegal. That's how the laws work. So if an ISP has a monopoly on providing broadband, and it charges monopoly prices for "fast-lanes," they'd be found liable and/or guilty under current antitrust laws. There's no need to build a rigid regulatory scheme on top of that. -- No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is "unfair," "undemocratic," or "bad for the economy." Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. ATT has even said that under a net neutrality regime, they'd have no incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure. The reality is that net neutrality chokes broadband competition, because it prevents experimentation in business models and pricing. We don't need net neutrality because the antitrust laws already protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Broadband providers can't do anything that would hurt consumers or competition. If they do, it means they have monopoly power (because you can't impose monopoly prices without monopoly power, as consumers would just buy your service from your competitors). And if they have monopoly power and abuse that power (by extracting monopoly rents), they're already doing something illegal under current antitrust laws. Which is why FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has said that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don"t like are non-existent: "The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it"s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy." [7] ISPs don't slow the Internet down in a free market; they compete with each other, which creates incentives to speed the Internet up. Net neutrality would choke that competition. [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.nationalreview.com... [6] http://www.wired.com... [7] http://www.fcc.gov... |
21 | b567d838-2019-04-18T12:55:37Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org... |
49 | b11887a6-2019-04-18T19:50:17Z-00003-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police profiling How can you be for police profiling? What if they were to start profiling white teenage males? You could end up with a life sentence for a crime that you didn't commit simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Think about all of the racial prejudices there are - we are living in the "enlightened" 21st century! Aren't we supposed to be able to figure out who committed crimes without regressing to the Dark Ages of "let's hang him because it's convient"? This society, which is increasingly based on globalization, cannot function with a police force that runs on a profiling basis. |
45 | 8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The penny should be stopped from circulation You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here. |
15 | e9fceef8-2019-04-18T14:01:57Z-00000-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing does more harm than good In previous ROUNDS, I showed that animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advancement of the last century, for both human and animal health, and that this research is partially responsible for extending the human lifespan; that animal research has directly led to better understanding in the life-cycle of living disease-spreading pathogens, and has led to numerous treatments to fight off diseases these pathogens cause, including pathogens that are considered likely contenders in biowarfare and bioterror attacks; that animal testing (pre-clinical trials) are an inescapable first step in developing a safe drug . . . that avoiding animal testing would inevitably result in large numbers of human casualies and fatalities during the testing phase, because most experimental drugs never make it passed the trial phase using animal research; that a variety of different species of animals, domesticated and wild, have directly benefited from animal research; and that approximately 95% of all animals used for biomedical research are rats and mice, which have a much lower encephalization quotient (intelligence capacity) than humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and even cats.Now I'm going to cover how the biomedical research industry limits the use of animals in research and protects them from gratuitous (unnecessary) harm. Finally, I'm going to go over developing alternatives to animal testing in biomedical research, and why fewer animals should be used in this type of research (even if their use is still required in fewer numbers).The Three Rs & US LawIn 1957 through 1959, researchers W.M.S. Russell and L.S. Burch went to work constructing principles that animal researchers could use to remove unnecessary pain on animals during testing and to make the field more ethical [1][2]. Their final formulation were three principles that they labeled the "3Rs": Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement [2].Replacement is the idea that researchers should use alternatives to living vertebrate animals wherever possible in their research. Today, replacement strategies include tissue cultures, perfused organs, tissue slices, cellular and subcellular fractions [2]. These strategies are recommended to distribute as much of one animal in research as possible, and as a way of multiplying the animal through live tissue cultivation (which simultaneously aligns with the principle of Reduction). Though it's not always possible, the use of invertebrate animals in place of vertebrate animals in research is also suggested.Reduction refers to the strategy of minimizing the number of animals used in a study [2]. This has the added benefit of having researchers better plan their studies, to prevent unnecessary replication. Modern methods at reduction include computer modeling, and statistical analysis, to better understand what a research result is getting at. Relying on previously published studies can also avoid unnecessary replication of test results and the gratuitous injury or death of lab animals.Finally, refinement was the last principle that Russell and Burch supported. Refinement is the strategy of intentionally alleviating or minimizing potential pain and suffering, or enchancing animal welfare during research [2]. Methods include properly housing animals during, before and after research, training animals to cooperate during research, providing animals with anaesthesia or an analgesic during testing, and avoiding invasive techniques where possible [2].Even though the 3Rs are a code of principles that animal researchers are encouraged to adhere to within the United States, they are not by themselves laws that govern biomedical research. Furthermore, even though knowledge of the 3Rs is widespread within the biomedical research community, they are not something every researcher is fully aware of--a major drawback [2].For this reason the US government passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Regulations in 1966 [3]. (U.S. Congress later improved standards for laboratory animals in 1985 [3].) The act imposed several important regulations, including requiring that all facilities doing animal research be registered with the US government; that certain animals used for research be purchased from authorized vendors only; that research facilities adhere to a variety of minimum requirements to meet humane handling, care, treatment, and transporation of these animals [4]. The Regulations also required that scientists working in the animal research laboratories be properly trained to meet the humane requirements for animal handling and proper care [4].Some US States have imposed additional regulations for animal treatment in animal research laboratories [5]As we see there are already regulations in place that govern the treatment of research animals inside the United States, though how well these regulations get researchers to comform to the three Rs is a hot button topic. One common complaint directed at the animal research field is that the majority of invasive animal experiments do not pass the cost-benefit test required by regulations and advocated by the three Rs [6]. Each year it's estimated that well over a hundred million animals die globally for animal testing in industry and in the medical research field [7].In light of the sheer number of animal fatalities, and because animal testing remains a controversial subject within the United States, several US government organization, including branches of the US military, have recently acted to reduce their dependence on animal testing [7]. In 2013, for example, the US NIH announced it would reduce the number and eventually phase out experiments on chimpanzees [7]. In 2014, the US Coast Guard announced it would reduce the use of goats in combat medic training, since modern mannequins are considered efficient in simulating the movement and behavior of the human body; that same year, the Department of Defense announced it would be reducing the number of animals used in various training programs [7].New & Developing Alternatives to Animal TestingThe sheer number of animals used in animal research annually--nearly 100 million in the United States alone [7]--should seriously get us to question whether researchers are conforming to the Principles of the 3Rs. After all, few of us want to impose unnecessary injury or death on animals where it can be avoided, even if there is some alleged benefit to ourselves. Futhermore, the concept of inflicting mass death to attain life (or a higher quality life) is unattractive, and can only make us mentally comfortable if we place civil regulations to it (unless you're a Nihilist). It's the way our justice-seeking, ethic-forming brains were wired to work. We generally want order, and we're capable of understanding that animals have feelings, too.Recently, scientists and engineers at Harvard have developed "organs on a chip" [7]. These tiny contraptions contain humans cells in three dimensional space, that mimic specific human organs. These chips can be used in place of animals for in vitro disease research, drug testing, and toxicity test [7]. Just a few years ago, researchers at L'oreal successfully 3-D printed genuine human skin, which it now sells to cosmetic and pharmocology companies; researchers say that other types of organ tissue can also be 3-D printed for research purposes [8].Computer simulation and modeling is another expanding technique used to replace animals in research [8]. Though this technique has provided real benefit to the biomedical research field, the US Academy of Sciences has argued that complex computer models are still unable to fully simulate the complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, and organs [8].[1] http://altweb.jhsph.edu...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...(animals)[3] http://awic.nal.usda.gov...[4] https://www.gpo.gov...[5] www.ca-biomed.org/pdf/media-kit/fact-sheets/FS-Laws.pdf[6] http://theconversation.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.wired.com... |
22 | d0093559-2019-04-18T13:41:37Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? (BDS) This debate however is about human rights. I have stated studies that have proven that Israel has committed atrocities against the Palestinian people. I do not hold any prejudice against the Israeli people, but its government. I would like to gather all of the studies that prove that the Israeli Government has: 1. Committed acts of terror against the Palestinian people. 2. Oppresses the Palestinian people which lead to an apartheid where Palestinians have no say in the government. 3. Created an environment where Palestinians support Hamas. 4. Has blocked peace deals that could have ended this conflict. Con has rebutted this by saying that the researchers had bias. This is confirmed by the UN, and Con has done nothing to prove that the professionals that work with the UN have bias against Israel. Northern West Bank- 20 Palestinians attested during Israeli army forces raids on Palestinian homes. Since September 13, 2015, 30 people have been killed by the Israeli Army. "The organisations said "the Israeli army has committed gross and systematic violations of the rules of global humanitarian law in Rafah which amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, through the organised targeting of Palestinian civilians, infrastructure and property and the killing of 255 Palestinians, including 212 civilians. Sources are in previous round. Of those 212 civilians are children. Of those 212 civilians are brothers and sisters that have been killed by the Israeli army. Con already has stated that casualties happen in war. This would be a perfectly okay argument if the Israelis were not seen as conquerors. The perspective of the Palestinians has always been that the Gaza Strip is there land. Palestinians live there, and support Hamas now, because they believe that organization can protect them. Torture- The Israeli government uses torture that violates UN Law, and the Geneva Convention. This particular example shows a young Palestinian getting electrical shots. . http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2016/02/15/450412/Israeli-soldier-electrocution You can watch the video to see what over 5,000 Palestinians face in these prisons. Israel's military offensive against Gaza- Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in 2014. 1400 Palestinians were murdered during Operation Protective Edge. 80% of those were civilians. About 300 children were also killed. "According to numerous news accounts, the International Red Cross, and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, during Israel"s attack on Gaza in 2014, the IDF once again bombed hospitals at least 24 medical facilities, 203 mosques (73 of which were completely destroyed), 2 churches, rendered uninhabitable over 20,000 civilian homes, fired on ambulances, civilian infrastructure and UN shelters. " Operation Cast Lead-100 Palestinians were killed for every 1 Israeli. Sources in previous round. Con has not disproved any of this, and has only cited a study with bias in it. The study Con also cites says nothing about the bombings of 24 medical facilities, 203 mosques, 2 churches, UN shelters, and 20,000 civilian homes. Palestinian lives have been destroyed in these bombings. This is not only a logical plea for a 2 state solution, but a humanitarian solution. Israel will have to do this again, if they want to keep control of The Gaza Strip. 53% of Palestinians want a two-state solution. In the future, there will be more terrorist groups like Hamas that will want to promote instability in the two regions. The consequence of this is that people die, and livelihoods are ruined. Government defies international law: "Israel repeatedly violates the Geneva Conventions by: "Targeting, killing, and collectively punishing non-combatant men, women and children "Moving its own population into an occupied zone "Imposing unnecessary curfews and closures" Source found in previous round. The Israeli Government has to do this in order to keep control in the Gaza Strip. The government has decided that the only way to keep control is to promote fear in that region. This shown through the bombings of civilian homes, mosques, and torturing people. This should be unacceptable. Apartheid- Demographics of Israel 6,336,000 Jews live in Israel. 1,754,000 are Muslim. Con has said that Apartheid does not mean racism. Con agrees that racism is a significant factor. There are already policies that support racism against Palestinians. "There are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland. "93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Jewish National Fund, that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for agriculture, residence, or commercial development. "More than seventy Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of the state, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps. Many other towns with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns. "Since Israel's founding in 1948, more than 600 Jewish municipalities have been established, while not a single new Arab town or community has been recognized by the state. "In September 2011 a survey found that a third of Israeli Jews don"t consider Arab citizens to be real Israelis. "According to a February 2011 survey, 52% of Israeli Jews would be willing to limit press freedoms to protect the state's image, while 55% would accept limits on the right to oppose the government's "defense policy. " "Also in September 2011, Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of settlements in Hebron and Kiryat Arba and head of the West Bank setter rabbis' council, told a conference that Arabs are "wolves," "savages," and "evil camel riders. " "A poll done by the Israel Democracy Institute and released in January 2011 found that nearly half of Israeli Jews don't want to live next door to an Arab. . http://imeu.org... Discrimination should be unacceptable in the 21st century. Declaring a two state solution will benefit both sides. Studies have already should that the two groups have a certain dislike of each other. This is unhealthy, and will only lead to more fatal circumstances for the Israeli government, and deadly consequences for the Palestinian people. I ask the voter like Con did to put aside certain biases that they have on this topic. This topic is very important, because it involves every value that the Western world values. There should be an outrage at the idea that there are policies that are purposefully used to discriminate against Palestinians. Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? In this hypothetical, a majority of people should boycott Israel. Con has failed to point out that there are more harms than benefits that would happen if this occurred. Benefits: -Discrimination will stop against the Palestinians. -The Israeli Government does not have to bomb the Gaza Strip anymore, because terrorist groups will have no motivation for there cause. -Torture will stop, and the Israeli Government will not have to defy international law. -No more atrocities that I have listed above will be committed. Harms: Israel will lose land. I think in this case the benefits do outweigh the harms. Vote Pro. I would like to also thank Con for starting this debate. I believe that so many valuable points were brought up for people to consider. Thank you. |
2 | a87b0d37-2019-04-18T17:19:07Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Marjuana should be legal with a few restrictions. Rebuttals (#'s):#1. yes the social costs of alcohol are not representative of those of marijuana, because alcohol is a more harmful substance. It has greater influence in crime and auto accidents - a cost which marijuana does not share with alcohol."He then goes on to cite a biased (clearly pro-legalization) and quite outdated source which says that the correlation between marijuana and auto accidents is "scientifically unproven".#2. Here is an except from Time (Dec 2011):"States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol."[1]"Furthermore, my opponent only recognizes car accidents as a social cost, while others exist, including non-driving related accidents caused by marijuana impairment, crimes committed while exhibiting poor judgment under the influence of marijuana, and again, lost workplace productivity, all of which would increase with the increased amount of users... it is unreasonable to believe these social costs wouldn't occur with this substance as well. #3. I was giving an example of a large social cost of alcohol, which isn't shared with marijuana that you likened to it. 40% of all auto accidents are alcohol-related [2]. The same cannot be said for marijuana. You haven't cited any sources backing up your claims that a significant amount crimes are committed from being high on marijuana. I stated that marijuana should not be allowed in areas designated that it is not allowed - this includes the workplace. There would be no decrease in productivity. It is easy to see there is not a huge social cost here."It makes no difference whether alcohol is slightly more dangerous, or far ore dangerous than marijuana; this does not, in any way, shape or form, justify legalizing an ADDITIONAL substance with ADDITIONAL drawbacks for society. Again, the only point you seem to be communicating is that marijuana is safer than alcohol; I was under the assumption that this debate would be about the positive/negative results of legalization, not its pros/cons as compared with something else."#4. It puts the drug in context to other legal drugs which is very relevant. For example: computer brands are differentiated but they are all brands of computers. Why ban a brand that is better than another currently being sold?Marijuana is a drug that is currently illegal but is safer and less costly socially than alcohol, which is legal. It doesn't make logical sense to have it remain illegal.-"Very little revenue could be gained from legalization"#5. $8.7 billion dollars in federal and state tax revenue annually [3]. The supposed social costs you mentioned had no sources.-Marijuana indeed has adverse health effects including cancer and brain deterioration #6. Your source had no causation. There is no definitive evidence.-Legalization would increase the quantity of users; exacerbating its burden upon society.#7. If by burden you mean social costs, you have not shown it significant."less or more severe than that of alcohol is irrelevant; it is a bad outcome nonetheless."#8. It puts the drug in context with a legal drugProhibition can actually be highly effective if implemented properly, like in China to combat opium addiction [4].#9. 1) this is in China with an entirely different drug 2) we have tried Prohibition here in America-it failedThe excerpt you quote is nothing more than a disclaimer. #10. It is an explicit disclaimer in the article itself because of lacking significant evidence and causal proof in their study."That such a loss does occur, however, is consistent with what we know from animal studies. [5]""They have shown that exposure to cannabinoids during adolescent development can cause long-lasting changes in the brain's reward system as well as the hippocampus, a brain area critical for learning and memory. [5]" #11. 1) animal studies do not show causality in humans. 2) "during adolescent development" would never occur, since I stated in the rules it would only be allowed for adults 18 and older."The evidence is significant, however the researcher adds disclaimers to avoid making definitive statements subject to attack."#12. I disagree, they use irrelevant evidence to prove their point which is aimed at different subjects (safety animals and adolescents vs. safety in adult humans) which is why they need explicit disclaimers."To ignore reliable evidence based on a couple of disclaimers designed to protect the study from naysayers would be a severe oversight."#13. Because they failed to take into account significant factors such as "child abuse, subclinical mental illness, mild learning disabilities...""The excerpt you site still maintains that the risk of accident among marijuana users is increased."#14. The risk of getting into an accident may increase while driving under the influence of marijuana, but since marijuana has been shown to substitute for alcohol use, overall driving accidents DECREASE in states where medical marijuana is legal."States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol."[1]"... at least 50 to 70 percent of the carcinogens in tobacco [6]. Sounds like a fairly compelling study to me."#15. I stated in the first round that marijuana has properties which decrease the amount of free radicals in the body, which cause cancer. Tobacco smoke doesn't have this. Here is an excerpt from my source in round 1."marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro...""My opponent's source later proceeds to comment on the link between marijuana and cancer/serious health issues.""However, Tashkin's (2005) research at UCLA-MC showed increased redness, swelling, and white blood cell count in regular marijuana users. Furthermore, because marijuana smoke is very similar to cigarette smoke, it seems quite likely that long term effects may be the same. [7]"#16. It fails to take into account that THC reduces cancer causing free radicals. See source [5] 1st round.You should have specified earlier [that you meant psychological dependence].#17. You should not have made the assumption I was talking about physical dependence."While it's often assumed that marijuana is not physically addictive, this could be inaccurate. The existence of physical symptoms (i.e. not psychological) such as headache and nausea [8], could be an argument for it indeed being physically addictive..."#18. You can get withdrawals from non-addictive anti-depressant medication [3]."...marijuana withdrawal as opposed to caffeine withdrawal. They are actually not all that similar... and those of marijuana are no doubt more severe, as evidenced by the large number of people who need rehab to help cope with them."#19. Caffeine and marijuana withdrawal are virtually identical sharing:Marijuana withdrawal: physical tension, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, mood swings ...[5, 6]3.9 million people are admitted to drug rehabilitation each year [9]. 16.1% of this is 627,900. Regardless of its proportion to the total amount of marijuana users, it is significant number...17.4 million people are regular users. Or 0.036% of users.Benefits of legalization: tax revenue, personal freedom, safer than legal drugs and tobacco, weak criticism.sources:http://healthland.time.com...[1]http://alcoholism.about.com...[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.mayoclinic.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com... [5]http://coffeetea.about.com... [6] |
3 | 9f34b976-2019-04-18T16:52:39Z-00005-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism Free Trade is better than protectionism for the following five reasons. 1. Free Trade is good for Americans Free Trade is good for Americans because consumers will benefit from producer surplus. This would be how Americans can consume at an overwhelming alarming rate. An example of this would be Walmart. Walmart can produce goods at a cheaper rate and consumers can purchase at a cheaper price[1]. Free Trade allows Americans to consume more at a cheaper price. [1]. http://www.forbes.com... 2. Free Trade is good for the impoverished As I said in #1, Free Trade allows consumers to consume more because of the surplus. This is most beneficial to those who are poor. The poor can consume and won't have to worry about their finances as they would under protectionism. Free Trade according to the World Trade Organizations helps to reduce poverty. [2]. http://www.wto.org... 3. Free Trade eliminates incompetent competitors For example, Free Trade allowed the Japanese to bring cars to America. The US auto manufacturers brought out the Pinto, Pacer, and Vega to compete but failed miserably. Americans should not have to purchase inferior products for the sake of incompetent producers. [3]. http://www.nbcnews.com... 4. Free Trade encourages economic development With Free Trade, foreign companies and American companies can invest in each other's countries. This allows corporations to have an interest in the economic growth of other countries. 5. Free Trade leads to a more mutually satisfying foreign policy Countries are mutually invested in each other. Therefore countries are less likely to go to war with one another. Countries engaged in a Free Trade agreement will reconsider going to war because they will suffer economically as a result. Free Trade also prevents the United States from getting into trade wars with other countries in the vile exchange of tariffs and quotas. |
24 | e3114284-2019-04-18T19:45:15Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Libertarians have it right on taxes- national sales tax, abolish that pesky income tax - A national sales tax discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources. - The removal of an income tax encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. - Individuals would have an extra incentive to work hard and earn income, leading to a far more productive nation. - A sales tax would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements and freeing up all the money & time lost on the income tax process. - Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items. - Consumer prices of certain items would fall since labor and tax compliance costs would be cheaper to businesses. - It would allow a greater collection of tax money from those carrying out illegal transactions, since their income is hid from the income tax system but will be taxed when they spend it in a sales tax. - It's a tax system consistent with a free society; i.e. Americans have a choice regarding their taxes, unlike our current confiscation system. - Kill other ridiculous taxes. How would you like to purchase a new $23,000 Ford Taurus for only $12,650? That's the price you would pay if the government didn't tax every product you buy at every stage of its production, reports Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). According to an ATR study, hidden taxes significantly boost--by as much as 26% to 75%--the price of every consumer product you buy. |
40 | 351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States Thank you, Roy, for posting your final argument. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal My opponent points out that because the community favors the death penalty, the lack of a death penalty would require a dangerous non-democratic elite. However, there is another alternative: the death penalty should not be legal, so therefore the people should not supprot it. Democracy is not inherently right; such an idea would commit the is-ought fallacy. During much of America's history, the majority supported slavery; does that mean that slavery "should" have been legal? The "should" in the resolution implies that my goal in this debate is to explain why the people should stop supporting the death penalty. If my opponent is allowed to assume that with a legal death penalty comes an overhaul of the system to eliminate wasteful trials, then I am allowed to assume that the people should oppose the death penalty, and therefore the death penalty should be illegal. My opponent has no response regarding the risk of 5-4 court decisions. Additionally, regarding the "safeguards against wrongful executions," my opponent seems to want to disassemble many components of the trial process; would such revision continue to have support from the Supreme Court, given how shaky they already are? 2+. Execution saves innocent lives With my opponent's intentions of executing prisoners with little time for the Innocence Project, the 17 freed prisoners would indeed have been executed. The Innocence Project does not make this claim because they are not aware of my opponent's plans. Regarding the ten executions listed, the site claims that they are wrongful, but have yet to be confirmed by the state; this makes it rather unlikely that any of them were proper executions. My opponent incorrectly assumes that 35 is an upper bound, but this does not include the unknown number of innocents executed that were not caught by the Innocence Project, the state's revision process (which has already been sourced as imperfect), and the ten infamous cases. 35 is instead more likely a lower bound. My opponent argues that in a life sentence, there will be murders of inmates and guards; however, he has never given an example of this under maximum security. He has only used numerous examples from medium or minimum security. I was never expecting a list of deaths in maximum security prison, but we don't even have a single example from which to conclude anything. My opponent's final comparison of eight to 33 assumes that all mistaken executions are later realized, which is almost definitely false, and that those 33 prisoners were under the same security that someone my opponent would give the death penalty would be under, which is also false. My claim of "increased security" was mistaken by my opponent as "supermax," but only maximum security, which is already legal, is necessary, making this point irrelevant. Concluding this contention, switching prisoners from the death sentence to a life sentence under maximum security would not increase the murder count at all, because all of the examples of breakout murders occured under sub-maximum security. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics It may be more difficult for a framing or bribery to work, but it is far from impossible. I already cited a case in which it nearly succeeded; had a few fewer mistakes been made, it would have succeeded. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error My opponent again compares the risk of driving to the risk of execution. Since Round 1, I've pointed out that the use of automobiles benefits everybody in the world outstrips the benefit of executing murderers "by factors easily past the billions." Anything true for one is a far cry from guaranteed for the other. This is somewhat of a subjective point, so direct debating is difficult. The cost argument I mentioned in this contention, although it is also its own separate contention, to be discussed later. 5+. Justice deters crime My opponent claims that "the death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society." However, if we look at many Western countries and states, we could also see that the lack of a death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society. This isn't relevant to whether the death penalty deters crime at all. Regarding the statistics that I cited, their key points were the conclusions of criminologists and a study by the United Nations, neither of which would have the problems that my opponent supposes. Comparisons made between states compared bordering states with similar rural and urban makeups. My quote from the FBI that "[i]n no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty" goes unchallenged. Constant-culture studies are not as relevant to the death penalty in the United States as a study of effects in America itself, and we apparently don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, which is all that matters. 1-. Costs Death row itself is, apparently, more expensive than the maximum security that nobody can seem to break out of. A life sentence doesn't need death row security, but only maximum security. My opponent points to things that inflate the costs, but through much of this debate, I've been using statistics from Texas, which my opponent admits has relatively inexpensive executions, making those points moot. It is true that I never made any repsonse to defend supermax security, but that is because, as I said last round, supermax security is unnecessary when maximum security provides enough security to prevent escapes and murders. Plea bargaining from the death penalty may help with the costs slightly, but by the millions? Unlikely. As for the freeing of police, they would already be freed from the death penalty trials that occupy so much of the court's time, as I have already cited. In conclusion, the death penalty is unnecessarily expensive and kills more innocent people than it saves, with benefits not worth the trouble. Thank you, RoyLatham, for this debate. Good luck with the rest of the tournament. |
20 | 51f40646-2019-04-18T14:02:27Z-00005-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Terrorism is healthy. Terrorism will make the world a better place in the long run. |
24 | 72004c03-2019-04-18T15:20:56Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Flat Tax Thanks Pro. I'm also going to keep my rebuttal short and to the point. 1. Pro says a flat tax is more fair, but I am arguing the opposite. In the process of determining wages, an employer has the upper hand in the negotiating process. The higher up the ladder in management and ownership you go at work, and the more capital you acquire as an individual, the more advantages you have in life. To subsidize the people with inherent disadvantages, the government guarantees what is considered bare minimum standards of living for its citizens. They change over time, and these are funded through taxes. The more wealth you have, the more you contribute as a matter of practicality; you can afford it. We value a progressive tax system because charging everyone the same rate of a flat tax would defeat the purpose of taxation helping people in the first place. A flat tax doesn't penalize people for success, because people still get rich and have a gap above others. 2. I concede point #2 because I don't think it's relevant. Moving on. 3. People do spend money on tax advisers, but that's because it saves them money in the long run as the advisers know how to optimize their benefits if they are deserving of tax credits. Tax advisers are not necessary. Mistakes are fairly easy to avoid even if you do your own taxes As for tax fraud, we should not have to make something incredibly simple just to ensure economic integrity and abiding by the law. 4. The same reasoning goes for point #4 in regard to politicians working with corporations to create tax loop holes. Rather then eliminate the progressive tax, we can discourage fraud and stop rewarding cronyism. 5. A flat tax rate would only benefit those wealthy enough to invest and expand in the first place. This does not do anything for the lower and middle class who rely on the top earners to contribute their "fair share." We suggest it's fair because they enjoy the privileges of their wealth, which should not come at the expense of other people's survival. 6. Pro says that sales tax can compensate for income tax, but I don't see how it can generate anywhere near the same revenue since we already have sales tax in most states in addition to income tax. 7. We have no reason to believe that people would not still hide money in off-shore accounts and do other criminal things even if we reduced the tax rate. People will always try to pay less than they have to, but that does not mean they SHOULD be paying more. 8. This goes along with point #8 about why rich people should have to foot the bill. See point #5. 9. Rich people with capital have to invest to continue earning profit, so they will invest and find ways to invest regardless. 10. Even if we cut spending, the U.S. has a ton of debt. What cutting should be spent and how much is also an ambiguous proposal by Pro. The people living below the poverty line and working for minimum wage cannot afford to contribute 20% of their earnings to government. 20% of 15K is $3,000 which means a flat tax rate of 20% would have a poor person earning 12K a year on minimum wage. That is impossible compared to a millionaire taxed at 20% who might pay $200,000 a year in taxes, which is a lot more but they can still afford to live on $800,000 vs. a poor person's 12K. 11. Just because the majority of people want something doesn't mean it's for the best. After 9/11 the majority of people wanted to go to war with Iraq, but when more evidence was attained and time passed, we got less emotional and chose something more rational. Now the majority of Americans disagree with that position. 12. I concede point #2 because I don't think it's relevant. Moving on. 13. Pro's suggestion is good for the wealthy, but ignores the burden on the middle class. The middle class will not benefit from this sudden tax break and will likely see a huge tax increase. They will not be able to save more, they will have to spend more. They will be in a worse position, less likely to become entrepreneurs and more indebted to the capitalist elite who can exploit them due to their circumstance. |
29 | ee228591-2019-04-18T16:24:45Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | The United States should build and maintain a border fence Counterplan—"Easy citizenship, no wall" My opponent has suggested building an expensive 700 mile wall to "solve" border problems; however, I will propose a counterplan that is both more beneficial and less risky. HR-15 has shown that the US Congress is willing to strongly consider new pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and an easier access to citizenship for immigrants [6]. My counterplan would have congress pass a bill that would enact the following: (1) Offer citizenship and immunity from deportation to all non-criminal undocumented residents of the US, and (2) Change the major requirements of citizenship to include only a criminal background check and documentation of citizenship from another nation (as needed).Contentions: 1. Documented and undocumented immigrants benefit the US economy. Pro's source of the cost to immigrants is a Fox News report of a study from an organization called "FAIR." Both organizations are famously anti-immigrant. In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-regarded organization specializing in identifying extremist groups labeled FAIR as an anti-immigrant hate group. [1]. Critics point out just after FAIR's release that the study contains "critical errors," including the fact that they don't include the benefits of increased education in the workforce [2]. Adjusting for these errors, a 2008 report found that the then-current undocumented immigrants were responsible for a net of 8.1 million jobs and 1.8 trillion dollars into the government's annual revenue [3]. Fighting immigration would have short-term and long term negative effect on the US economy, especially in states around the border [3]. Studies show that undocumented immigration increases the overall household incomes of US natives [4, p19]. In contrast, the wages of native-born citizens lowered as undocumented immigration slowed [4, p20]. Undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government service expenses [4, p21; 5]. This is because they pay property taxes on their homes and sales taxes on their purchases. Additionally, many contribute to social security through their employers by presenting them with fake social security codes, and thus give $7 billion dollars annually to social security they can never collect [7]. Whereas stifling immigration of any kind would be detrimental to the economy, projections estimate that providing even a slightly-easier pathway to citizenship could provide an additional $500 billion in revenue over time [8]. 2. The Mexican government might make trade sanctions against the US. The Mexican government stated that the redirection of water resulting from the fence would violate a US-Mexico treaty [18]. Mexico may take serious action against the US as a result, including trade restrictions.Trade sanctions could be disastrous. Last year the US exported over $220 billion of products to Mexico and imported over $280 billion products [19]. 3. Cost of fence I will concede Pro's estimate of $16 B to construct and $1.1 B/y to maintain [see his point 2].However, I'd have to ask that Pro be more specific in explaining how the DHS will divert their funding to this program. Here's a link to the DHS budgets for 2014 and 2015 [22]. 4. Alternative use of money Billion(s) of dollars would be better spent improving the living conditions of American Indian Nations and veterans. I will elaborate on alternatives in R3. 5. The border fence runs through the territory of three Indian Nations (O'odham, Cocopah and Kickapoo) [17]. This fence would degrade their territories despite their protests. 6. The border fence devalues property surrounding boarder that is usually owned by poor minorities who are unable to afford a legal battle to secure appropriate monetary compensation. [20] 7. A border fence policy only adds to the stigma of "illegal" and subsequent racist attitudes toward "illegals" [11, 12]. Undocumented immigrants are afraid to report hate attacks due to their fear of deportation [11, 12]. My counterplan of Easy Citizenship would give immigrants access to protection from hate crimes, whereas my opponent's plan would only aggravate anti-immigrant attitudes. 8. A more effective border fence would cause undocumented immigrants to take more dangerous routes. Border patrol recently found 1000+ bodies in a dangerous desert near the border. The number of deaths through this desert tripled since the initial fence construction and is growing [10, 14], and would grow even faster under Pro's plan. In contrast, Easy Citizenship would virtually eliminate migrant-boarder deaths by making legal entry convenient. 9. The US sex trafficking industry depends on a difficult citizenship process. Sex traffickers persuade non-native workers into entering the US illegally or with a visa with a promise of a job. The victims cannot enter the US legally, and thus rely on the trafficker for an illegitimate position [21]. Whereas my opponent's plan fails to protect other borders and airports from sex trafficking, my counterplan will nearly eliminate all sex trafficking in the US by eliminating the victims' need to rely on the trafficker for entry, and thus frustrate the dealers' recruitment. 10. The border fence would harm the environment and possibly drive species to extinction. The fence hinders the mating, migration, and habitat of nearly all walking, slithering, and some flying animals who live nearby [15, 16]. Additionally, the border fence could eliminate three endangered species. It is vital that these species have connected populations, but the border fence divides their populations, limiting their breeding. Additionally, the lights from the fence and noise from the roads and guards interrupt their ability to breed, making it highly likely that they will soon go extinct if the border fence in my opponent's plan came to fruition [15, 16]. 11. A more effective border fence indirectly incentivizes drug cartels A fence would reduce the supply of illicit drugs but not affect the demand, and thus increase the value of drugs. Drug running will have much higher returns, but the fence blocks casual dealers. These dealers would therefore be forced to rely on gangs and crime lords to successfully cross the border. 12. Fighting undocumented immigration perpetuates undocumented crime. Because they are hunted by the law, undocumented immigrants are sometimes forced to work outside the law to survive. Building a wall does nothing to fix this system. However, Easy Citizenship would reduce undocumented immigrant convicts and crimes long term, dramatically lowering prison and legal expenses. 13. A border fence won't improve security. Terrorists and weapons dealers are not limited to these specific 700 miles of the US-Mexico border. They would simply find other route like the other 1,489 miles not fenced, 5,525 miles on the Canadian border, 95,000 miles of coastline, or airlines [13]. This border fence would not protect against terrorism or gun smugglers. Additionally, organized drug smugglers will be further incentivized due to the border fence (see 11). Border Patrol does not inspect food-items for freshness—border fences will not improve food safety. By dramatically reducing the number of undocumented entries, the border patrol will be able to more effectively attend to real security concerns. [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... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://tinyurl.com... |
38 | 6231ab47-2019-04-18T16:20:48Z-00008-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana Legalization I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway. |
50 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
48 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
1 | 87718a55-2019-04-18T18:06:51Z-00005-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should God be taken completely out of school I wish good luck to my opponent and look forward to the rest of this debate. While I agree with you that kids in school should not be forced on religion, I believe that the kids that actually care about their religion or those who want to know about religions should have the choices of classes that they want. A lot of kids would jump at the chance to have a class like this, but kids that don't want the type of classes have the choice on weather to take the class or not. people today such as myself are interested in different religions and how each one of them works, and if I were to have a theology class I would have enjoyed it very much. And even though kids today aren't involved in religion like they should be, there's still that group of kids who take there or other people's religions very seriously. Some kids today when they get older, want to have a job in theology or be a cultural religion teacher. So a class in school, even if it is a public school, should be open to the students that want a class of that nature. It would help prepare them for this aspect of life and for those who want a profession in any kind of religion could benefit from this type of class. Thank you for reading and I look forward to my opponents response. |
7 | 73231531-2019-04-18T19:40:46Z-00000-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Requiring photo ID in order to vote. === Cost My opponent states that some states have stricter photo ID requirements, such as requiring the current home address to be accurate, etc. However, I am not here to argue that we require a photo ID with X, Y, an Z. I'm here to argue that we should simply require a photo ID. Therefore, I am not arguing for these stricter laws that go beyond simply requiring a photo ID. As far as I'm concerned, the only stipulations we should have is that the photo ID be verifiable. Whether or not the current home address is reflected on the ID is meaningless, since it does not affect the identity of the person voting. The system knows your current home address based on your identity, so requiring both is overkill. My opponent also suggests, once again, that some number of eligible voters will be unwilling to vote in the new system. My answer? Oh well. We already have a system where voting is not painless. We have to register to vote, we have to drive somewhere to vote, we have to spend our precious time voting. People are already being cut out of the picture with these stipulations. It's true that a few more people will be cut out of the picture with requiring a photo ID, but this number is quite small. The cost, as I've explained, is roughly 10 dollars and a trip to the DMV for most people. Anyone willing to go through the trouble of voting in the first place is almost certainly willing to do this. There will of course be a few who simply could not get around to doing it, but that is the reality of life. I believe I have shown that this is an acceptable loss. Let's talk about the elderly. They all have places to live. If they plan on voting, they have a way to get a ride somewhere. And very few elderly people who would vote tend to not have 10$ - this is covered in the 'poor' group. Now, students, another 'key' group my opponent brings up. Very few students don't have an ID. We need ID to smoke, drink, etc. Most of us voing age students, even if we don't have cars [metropolitan areas?] will have University-given ID's. And as I stated, these fit the bill already. Even so, hardly any students would be unable to scrounge up a ride to the DMV and 10 bucks. Even if we didn't almost all have ID's to begin with, we could easliy go get one. And now, finally, the poor. In a few cases, poor people do not have a place of residence, and may therefore not be able to go get an ID. In these cases, realize that vagrancy is in most places a crime already. We should not give ID's to people who are definitely actively committing crimes, nor should we allow such people to vote. However, most poor people at least have a place of residence. Are the poor willing, though, to give up 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV? Possibly not, depending on the extent of their poorness. This is a loss, but it is an acceptable one. The group "poor people who would have voted were it not for that 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV" is quite small. Most poor people already have ID's anyway, and most who are unwilling to waste that small amount of time and money getting an ID were already unwilling to spend that time and effort voting. === Effects My opponent says I mislead you all on the negative effects. He rewrites my 2 negative effects, while acknowledging the positive effects I listed [all 3 of them]: My old N1 and N2: N1. Some people who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. N2. People who have no ID will have to spend ~10 bucks and go to their DMV to get an ID. His re-written versions of these, eliminating my so-called trickery: N1. Poor, elderly, and rural and urban citizens will not be able to vote. N2. Illegals who want to vote still will be able to through fake ID's Since he disagrees with my old N1 and N2, we can dismiss those. Now I will rebut his new ones. ---N1 As his re-write reads now, my opponent would have you think entire voting groups are being blocked by this, when in reality it is only a very small minority of people in these groups who would be affected. I believe I have shown this round and last just how insignificant the affected portions of these groups are. Rather, I find my old N1 to be a superior explanation of the same thing, though I will modify it to indicate a slight bias towards affecting democratic groups. FINAL N1. Some people, consisting mostly of democrats, who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. ---N2 My opponent changed this to "Illegals who want to vote will still be able to vote through fake ID's" WHAT? Talk about contradicting yourself. My opponent's case so far has been that introducing a small amount of trouble, namely a trip to the DMV and ~10 bucks, will stop people from voting. However, let us realize something: getting a convincing fake ID is difficult, costly, dangerous, etc. Very few people have access to convincing fake ID's, and they no doubt have to pay quite a bit for them. If we concede that this will not hinder illegals from voting, we should also concede that a much smaller burden, getting a real ID at the DMV, will also not stop anyone from voting. So either my opponent's N2 or the rest of his case should be considered gone, since they directly contradict each other. My positive effects, which my opponent conceded to, are located in my 2nd round. Scroll up to read them again. |
29 | 928a8d47-2019-04-18T18:32:03Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Border Fence Thanks 32no I will start off refuting my points and then I will rebut my opponents. Here I go. ===Refutations=== Point 1- So first he talks about how my estimations may be inaccurate but then fails to state how or why. The statistics I have are from an actual source while all of his arguments are simply from his common knowledge. So then he says to look to points 3, 5, and 6. Lets look first to what he says about his point 3. He says that his point 3 shows how a Border Fence will do close to nothing. 1st I suggest this isn't true because people will be discouraged especially if we have patrols on that fence. 2nd even if you don't buy that then think of it like this, a fence is better than no fence. So now lets visit his point 5. His point 5 is all about staining our relationship with Mexico but 1st This wouldn't stain our relationship with Mexico because we're taking protective measures for our own citizens. We're not doing it based off of "Stereotype" Immigrants come from Mexico all the time and cause trouble just as my earlier statistics clearly show. 2nd Even if you don't buy that, even if building this fence does stain our relationship with Mexico, we need to worry about the safety and well-being of our citizens first. So if building a Border Fence does that then we should Affirm. Also he mentions the Berlin wall but fails to show the resemblance. I don't know much about the Berlin Wall so I can't properly refute it but I propose this Border Fence is more like a symbol of strength like the Great Wall of China. Its meant to defend our citizens from intruders and that in and of itself represents a strong Nation. Now lets visit Point 6. Point 6 is all about alternatives. He proposes that their are alternatives to a wall, but these alternatives aren't nearly as effective as a Border Fence. He doesn't really propose any actual alternatives to point 1. Point 2- Against point 2 he first says that illegal immigrants have no intention of returning to Mexico. We can't just assume this first of all because he gives no real empiric evidence. Then he also missed the point of that argument. I was saying that these immigrants send money they make in the U.S back to Mexico either to rebuild their country, or to bring even more illegal immigrants from their country to the U.S. Then he talks about my statistics from point 1 and point 2, but he totally misunderstands them. If you revisit point 1 it gives statistics on how much of Latino are made up of illegal immigrants. Then the statistic I give in point 2 is how many illegal immigrants are actually taking our jobs. These two do not contradict each other one says that 90% of MS-13 (The most notorious immigrant gang) is made up of illegal immigrants, that there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in gangs, and that a substantial amount of YOUNG illegal immigrants grow up to be in gangs. While the other states that there are 7.7 million illegals (as of 2008) taking jobs from Americans. Point 3- His only counter to point 3 is his argument on Alternatives, then he states some. The first is to pass a law that prohibits health care to illegals. While that may get rid of the issue there is still the issue of taxation. These illegal immigrants pay no taxes and still receive public benefits (School, police force, etc) the average citizen must now pay taxes for illegal immigrants. Then there is this automatic deportation law. This is in total contradiction of his point 2. His point 2 is about "Less Consumers" And if we affirm then we will have less consumers but presenting this automatic deportation act also causes less consumers, total contradiction. Then he talks about how the wall is drastic and inefficient but its better than these alternatives he presents. Then at the bottom of the rebuttal he offers more alternatives. Negotiating with Mexico- This still won't do much justice since during the Negotiations illegals are still crossing the border as well as Mexico can't really stop its citizens from crossing the border just as much as we can't stop them from coming over without this border fence Automatic Deportation Act-Once again in his point 2 he talks about if we Affirm there would be less consumers but then he presents this as an alternative in the Neg world. So this is in contradiction with his point 2 Refusing Health Care- There is still the issue of public taxation Enforce the border with U.S Troops- He talks about staining our relations with Mexico but then he presents this as an alternative to the Border Fence. This will still stain our relationship with Mexico because it will seem as though we are even more afraid of these illegals that we need troops to attack at the border rather than a wall just for defense. More serious punishment- They still caused some kind of damage by already coming over, a wall will better prevent that damage from ever happening Rewards- Cross apply what I say against more serious punishment. ==Rebuttal== Point 1- Money He says that this won't pay off directly and isn't a good investment but I propose that this will pay off because 1) More Americans will get jobs and be able to make money lifting the poverty line. 2) Less taxation U.S citizens for public affairs and costs. Point 2- Less Consumers So his point 2 is not only in contradiction in his proposal of an automatic deportation act but it also assumes that the Border Fence WILL be effective in keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S since there will be less consumers. Point 3- Whats a fence going to do ? A fence will be more than no fence at all. It will discourage more and more illegals of trying to cross over than no Border Fence at all. He says so himself that less illegal immigrants will be coming in. Once again he concedes in point 2 that a fence will work. Point 4- Legalize Drugs Legalizing Drugs won't do any good. 1) It will put the public in even more danger than a Border Fence will. 2) Even we tax them and supposedly make more money we still put citizens at risk which isn't worth it. 3) Just because there are more serious punishment for illegal selling of drugs doesn't mean it will stop. There will still be illegals crossing the border and selling drugs. A border fence is the best way to make sure that the public is safe from crime and drugs. Point 5- Relations So once again he talks about how our relations with Mexico will be stained but 1) All of his proposals are still effectively offensive to Mexico and Illegal Immigrants. So basically he recognizes that Illegal Immigrants are a serious issue, and he says a Border Fence isn't a good solution and provides other solutions but these other solutions are still offensive. Either way our relations with Mexico might still be stained, but in the Aff world we have a better chance of protecting its citizens which is VERY important. So basically the huge points that the voters should definitely look to would be: 1st My opponent recognizes that illegal immigrants are a huge threat but says a Border Fence won't help and then provides alternatives. At the point where I effectively disprove all of these alternatives is reason enough to Aff. 2nd My opponent also argues that the Border Fence will do close to nothing but look back to his point 2 where he says there will be less consumers. This point assumes that the Border Fence will be effective. So at the point where my opponent also concedes that the Border Fence is effective is also reason enough to Aff. 3rd We've also established that Government has an obligation to its citizens to protect them and that these illegals are a threat. At the point where my opponents alternatives fail, and he concedes that the Border Fence will work then the Government fulfills its obligation to its citizens. This Border Fence won't be viewed as another Berlin Wall, rather it will be like the symbolic Great Wall of China protecting its citizens from intruders. For these reasons I urge an Affirmative Ballad. |
4 | 29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00006-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | All schools should bring back corporal punishment I didn't expect to be criticized so quickly. I merely made a simple statement to get the ball rolling, not to present evidence. I wanted someone to accept the argument first. I did have a fact in the statement, I wrote, "No whiny little brats want to shoot someone when there poor little feelings get hurt because they have had no structure in school or at home." That is a pure and simple fact. Before the "hippie generation" there were only 3 school shootings, before 1970. "Enoch Brown school massacre " July 26, 1764 "Poe Elementary School Attack " September 15, 1959 "University of Texas at Austin massacre " August 1, 1966 "Kent State shootings " May 4, 1970 "Avivim school bus massacre " May 8, 1970 "Jackson State killings " May 14-15, 1970 "Ma"alot massacre " May 15, 1974 "California State University " July 12, 1976 "Parkway South Junior High School shooting " January 20, 1983 "Laurie Dann " May 20, 1988 "Stockton massacre " January 17, 1989 ""cole Poly technique Massacre " December 6, 1989 "University of Iowa shooting " November 1, 1991 "Concordia University massacre " August 24, 1992 "Simon"s Rock College of Bard shooting " December 14, 1992 "Richland High School shooting " 1995. "Frontier Junior High shooting " February 2, 1996 "Dunblane massacre " Scotland, March 13, 1996 "Sanaa massacre " Yemen, March 30, 1997 "Pearl High School shooting, October 1, 1997 "Heath High School shooting, December 1, 1997 "Jonesboro massacre " March 24, 1998 "Thurston High School shooting " May 21, 1998 "Columbine High School massacre " 1999 "W. R. Myers High School shooting " April 28, 1999 "Heritage High School shooting " May 20, 1999 "Santana High School " March 5, 2001 "Appalachian School of Law shooting " 2002 "Erfurt massacre " Germany, 2002 "Monash University shooting " Australia, October 21, 2002 "Rocori High School shootings " September 24, 2003 "Southwood Middle School tragedy, 2004 "Red Lake High School massacre " March 21, 2005 "Campbell County High School " November 8, 2005 "Dawson College shooting " Canada, September 13, 2006 "Platte Canyon High School shooting " September 27, 2006 "Amish school shooting " October 2, 2006 "Weston High School shooting, September 29, 2006 "Henry Foss High School " 2007 "Beirut Arab University shooting " Lebanon, January 25, 2007 "Virginia Tech massacre " April 16, 2007 It is part of the mentality of today's youth that they are entitled things, one of those being respect. When I was a child we respected ALL adults, even the ones we didn't like. Repect was earned NOT handed out freely. Websites will follow at the end. Corporal Punishment as described by the Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus (in one volume - 1990) is "punishment of a physical nature such as caning". The term mainly relates to children being punished at school but can also refer to children being punished at home. As of 2008 corporal punishment has been banned in 24 countries, including Germany, Greece and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, it is still widely used by parents in their homes. In the UK, corporal punishment has been banned in schools for numerous years. However a debate is now arising as to whether the decision to ban corporal punishment in schools was the right decision and hence, whether corporal punishment should be reintroduced? If you ask the teachers, those on the front line of disruptive students, a recurring comment is that with corporal punishment off the agenda, there are no sanctions available to teachers for the most stubborn of terrors! 1 In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement, 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests. Coming from one of the most liberal professions, I would say 1200 teachers is a lot!!!!!!!!!! 2 It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime. 3 Children"s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of "but you can't take away my freedom", "you have no right" or "I have rights". In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. And detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. 4 There is a real feeling amongst those who are bullied that telling the teacher will worsen the problem, not make it better. Victims of bullying fear repercussions. However, if there was a system of corporal punishment behind the teachers, then something could be done which would scare the bullies out of their bullying ways. This would open bully victims up as they would discuss bullying issues with teachers knowing that something definitive could be done. If a child thinks it's okay to hit because a teacher or adult uses corporal punishment then that child is slow and fails to realize the purpose and meaning behind such an action. Besides a good and effective teacher is not going to use corporal punishment all the time, but as a last resort when all else fails. A threat is no good unless there is some fearful truth behind it. Also, teachers are only ignorant to bullying matters because they know they cannot realistically do much to stop it. So in effect, bullying has gotten a lot meaner. 5 http://debatewise.org... 1-5 You can read the opinion of real moms on the following website. http://www.circleofmoms.com... I will leave you with this thought. It worked for over 7000 years. The problem is not in the spanking it is in the weak minds of our youth. Men used to go to war, come home and lead a normal life. Since the "hippie generation" they started coming back with problems. The men coming back from Afghanistan, GOD bless them, are having a real hard time mentally. I was in Rhodesia in 1981 and saw some real horrible things but my upbringing helped me to cope with the horrors I witnessed. I was paddled at least once a month from 2nd grade to 6th. That is the way they dealt with ADHD back them. I eventually got tired of being paddled and learned to calm down and do my work. I grew up fine. I raised 4 daughters and used room confinement, standing in the corner and paddling and they all turned out perfect. |
27 | 579ea609-2019-04-18T19:52:27Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Washington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are "unenforceable." On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. "And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics," Timoney said. "You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise." Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, "Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention," Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, "Guns and Suicide," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., "Firearms and Family Violence," Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., "Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems," Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the "quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths." Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book "Private Guns, Public Health" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me. |
9 | f44585fe-2019-04-18T17:59:55Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should be allowed to do homework during recess My apologies to Dakota and readers, this was meant to be a 4, not 3, round debate. That is my fault entirely. This means that Con is allowed to bring in new evidence and arguments this round, otherwise he would have had no chance to rebut my R2 arguments! On students attending school, fair point, but not a critical matter. To arguments. The Importance of Exercise I completely concur with Con that exercise is of the highest importance, and that no Sicilian or Caro-Kann defence can help with health problems. I am the first to stress improving physical health. It is a travesty that so many children and teenagers are unfit, lethargic and often lazy; I am as eager as Con to improve the fitness of children. Eliminating recess is not the answer to this problem. The Value of Recess Recess has many benefits derived from it's status as a form of unallocated free time; time for the students to relax, to do something of their own choice. These benefits are gone if the time becomes allocated, if it becomes supervised and choices narrow; Con advises this narrowing. In R2 (I understand that the rules prevented rebuttal... it is a shame I can't counter Con's next rebuttal) discussed these benefits extensively. The fostering of social friendships from interaction (which is more positive when the task done is enjoyed... which is derived from choosing a task!) , unwilling students congest space (most schools don't have the facilities for every high school student to perform physical exercise simultaneously) and de-motivate others, the opportunity cost – homework not done at school is done at home, students enjoy an activity through the act of choosing it (ever lost interest in an activity because you had to do it?) etc. I discussed these benefits in depth in R2. Readers can examine that for a more detailed examination of my case. But I said that I'm eager to improve fitness, so shouldn't I support the resolution? There are many important things in life. Con is completely right in saying that health is important. But that doesn't mean, say, education isn't important. We'd all laugh at the idea of replacing the entire school day with exercise, a ludicrous idea, right? Education and exercise are both important in life – we need both, we need a balance of things. So what else do we need? We need some free time – that free time is recess. To talk about 6-7 hours of limited options, directed work and no freedom. That has consequences. Productivity will rise by keeping recess – students benefit immensely from a touch of freedom. We need exercise and freedom. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, in this case robbing freedom for exercise, is not ideal. We need to retain both, lest we face adverse impacts as with the case of education and exercise, while implementing a host of policies to improve fitness. Examples: Using fitness classes more effectively Enable students to wear sports gear to school (In uniformed schools we wear our school uniform, then change, play sport, and change back; waste of 10 minutes) Put sports lessons back to back – less time spent setting up equipment Don't spend an entire term on a dance unit with 90 students on 1 basketball court (a personal anecdote) ; physical education classes (as distinct from 'sport' as a separate school activity) ought to be more intense Logistical Policies Extend the school day; this can enable more free time, reduce homework loads and, more physical education can be built into the school timetable! See http://www.debate.org... ; my rounds explain my claims. Instilling student desire for fitness Assess students' fitness by drills like the Beep test (it has many names) ; "The results were astounding. Just six weeks after the [Beep] test began the participating students had increased their fitness levels by 17 per cent and are now among the fittest in their age category in Europe" [1] ; Remember, more time in school for such tests (extend the school day) and there's a swift 17% improvement. Also, from the same article: 'The PE teachers have seen their students embrace the idea. They're cycling, they're running in their own time as well as the activities during school time," Ms McAteer said' Furthermore, why not have 'pass' marks for fitness? You can fail a mathematics exam yet never fail anything to do with fitness. Note that exceptions would be built in provided physical disabilities existed for a child, a leg had been broken etc. The point is that a fitness assessment, and a required minimum, increases the importance of fitness in a parent's eyes as failing a subject can have severe consequences for being allowed to move up a year. The Value of Activities at Recess I'm probably guilty of portraying Con's idea as a regimented, systematic activity of physical activity at recess. What I want to address right now though is that even if Con's proposal had every student, of their own volition, choose physical activity that doesn't diminish the value of other activities. For instance, Con discusses the mental benefits of exercise, and attacks things like chess and homework. Except, chess has very, very positive benefits, such as raising IQ scores, fostering creative thinking, demonstrate the importance of flexible planning, concentration, and the consequences of decisions etc. [2] There's a reason Armenia made chess compulsory in schools! [3] Imagine the health benefits of being able to evaluate the consequences of one's actions on one's physical fitness. Also, extend the point about optimal social interaction occurring given choice. Enforcement and Logistics In R2 I talked above the difficulty in enforcing a policy of no homework. Imagine giving a student a detention for doing homework. They turn up to detention and quietly go do... homework. Resources are wasted and the like with a policy of enforcement. I discussed this last round. However, I actually forgot about a much bigger point logistical point last round – meetings are commonly scheduled during lunchtime, and so are activities. Just today a good 20 students were operating a food stall for our school's multicultural day. I was an aid for this. That's 20 students not performing physical activity of some sort, but they were performing a service to the school. Or what about mock trial, debating and chess? Teachers frequently schedule practice sessions during lunch. For mock trial I was having at least 2-3 meetings a week, many during lunchtime. Debating also had a weekly lunchtime session. Chess occasionally demanded us to talk to the teacher in charge on a Friday, or to help out juniors etc. All these vital activities were conducted during lunch. The performance of these teams would decline if practice was eliminated. So, move it afterschool? For many teachers this is a problem, not to mention students. It was a nightmare organising afterschool mock trial meetings considering many students in the team worked after school some days. Even if practice occurs, it's at the expense of time at home. So many school activities occur at lunch. To mandate physical play prevents this. If exceptions are granted... back to chess it seems. Enforcement issues. Summation We need exercise. We need free time amongst school days of 6-7 hours. Don't rob the only free time, recess, to 'pay' for exercise. Recess has benefits derived from freedom (see R2) , there's the opportunity cost, the severe difficulties of enforcement of Con's idea (meetings at lunch...) and clear ways exist to improve fitness, like beep tests on a frequent basis (17% improvement) . My thanks to Dakota for the debate. I apologise for this being only 3 rounds. Voters, vote fairly based only on the debate. Sources 1 - http://www.irishtimes.com... 2 - http://www.nswjcl.org.au... 3 - http://www.guardian.co.uk... |
24 | 6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The United States should adopt a negative income tax. Thank you for the definition. You can be more specific about what plan for a negative income tax you support in your argument, so I will use this round to argue against the tax in general.Contention #1: A negative income tax decreases incentive to work.Experiments in Seatle and Denver tested the effectiveness of a negative income tax. The Stanford Research Institute analyzed the results and found a 9-18% reduction in productivity, and that 50-60% of those recieving the tax used it to replace wages they would have otherwise earned themselves. [1]The same study also found that the tax decreased family stability because families no longer relied on wage-earners.Contention #2: A negative income tax would be expensive to implement.Even proponents of the tax estimate a cost of $38 billion a year, and that is underestimated:"And if once the main principle of either proposal were accepted, the minimum subsidy or guarantee demanded would be bound constantly to increase. Anyone who doubts this need merely consult the history of unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits since those plans were initiated in the 1930s."Implementing this system would be very expensive, possibly reaching trillions of dollars.ConclusionA negative income tax would be ineffective because it decreases incentive to work and causes family instability, and it would also be costly.I will not have access to my computer this weekend, so I would appreciate it if you could take your time to respond.[1] http://www.econlib.org...[2] https://mises.org... |
15 | 3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00004-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not. |
40 | abe4d9a2-2019-04-18T18:05:25Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty I would ask you to look at the links I posted, I think you will find that they prove your point to be, if only partially, invalid. Mistakes are made, and the problem with having the death penalty is that, once you have killed them, they are gone forever. A prison sentence, while still by no means enjoyable, at least means that the person can be pardoned if they are at a later date found to be innocent. It is also a simple and barbaric way of dealing with criminals. It was something that was practiced in the middle ages, has humanity still not moved on? Surely we can find other ways of administrating justice, that do not involve simply ending another persons life, which only achieves one thing; the person is no longer a danger to society. This however, is also easily resolved by a prison sentence, so surely if a prison sentence can achieve the same as what a death penalty can, for a lower cost, why is it not more effective to simply use that method. Many people would find that being locked in a small room, with limited contact with the outside world, more repulsing than a relatively quick and painless death. If someone has done something wrong (in the case of the death penalty, murder) it is right in the eyes of most people that justice should be applied. However, is the death penalty justice, or revenge? Justice has two definitions, according the the Oxford English dictionary, (http://oxforddictionaries.com...), and neither involves anything about killing people. The first definition, which is actually where the second definition originates, says, if you have not already read it, "Just behaviour or treatment". In my opinion, doing something to somebody that is what they have done to somebody else is not acceptable behaviour, especially in modern society. If somebody is accused of burglary, they are not burgled themselves. The same goes for (in the majority of HEDCs) sexual assault, trespassing or assault, amongst every other crime recognised by the law. While I understand that murder is much more serious, surely the same rule applies? Another thing that should be taken into consideration is the message that is given off; most HEDCs around the world do not use the death penalty, such as in Europe -where only Belarus maintains the death penalty- has less murders per 100,000 inhabitants than areas in Africa that maintain it. The comparison can be made using the graph on this page: (http://fullfact.org...). The article reveals a lot as well. While the murder rates would be higher in some countries due to culture or poor application of law, countries that have the death penalty also often have a high murder rate, so it obviously does not act as a deterrent. |
14 | a1cc594d-2019-04-18T18:12:22Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes. Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, "A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners." 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had "no impactson rates of sexual abstinence." [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu... |
8 | 9de8e3b-2019-04-18T19:57:30Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be allowed Abortion is the right of an individual woman. Whether they choose to get one or not it should always be an available option. It is not the right of myself or anyone else to deny that woman her rights to an abortion. If you do not wish to have an abortion than don't get one but why strip others of that right. A woman should be able to decide what she does with he own body. Every child born should be wanted. The consequences of not allowing abortion in a steryl place would result in women going into back-alley abortion clinics. |
34 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
32 | 2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11 |
42 | 18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00004-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | THW ban boxing I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, "My team" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U. S. , though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top. .. " And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but. .. " Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked! !! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law. " The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous. And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org... |
9 | caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | should students have to wear school uniforms We didn't, and currently this country's schools don't have uniforms for students and doing great! So apparently not needed, at all, at least here. K? |
8 | 95d50422-2019-04-18T19:03:02Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion Laws Should Be Legalized. My opponent wanted practice debating, but did not feel up to writing an affirmative case, so I have obliged on an agreed-upon topic. I understand that the resolution means "abortion should be legal." For this debate, I will consider mainly first trimester abortions, but also abortions at any time when the life of the mother is at stake. Negating the resolution requires that no abortion should be legal, so to it suffices to affirm that some abortions should be legal. this puts aside the issue of late term abortion. 1. Whether or not to have an abortion is a moral decision, but it is a personal decision to be made by the woman, not a decision for society. The Supreme Court ruled that for the first trimester the fetus is by nature totally dependent upon the mother, so it is properly considered part of the mother. The fetus cannot survive independently. The Court also ruled that the Constitution has an implied right of privacy. I don't necessarily agree that there is such a right in the Constitution, but the logic of the fetus being part of the mother is sound. The mother has an inherent right to manage her own body, and no law ought to interfere with that right. 2. The life of the mother ought to be prioritized above the ultimate survival of the fetus. Society has a lot invested in the mother in terms of education, and she is highly valued by her friends and family. The fetus has no perception, and most important, no memories. Consequently, if it comes to a medical decision to save either the mother or the fetus, it ought to be the survival of the mother that prevails. Legalizing abortion to save the life of the mother is required to make the right decision. 3. For the first few days after conception, the fertilized egg is a microscopic undifferentiated sphere. Many fertilized eggs, more than half are spontaneously aborted naturally. No one considers spontaneous abortion as morally significant. No one holds them to be comparable to a late term miscarriage. Generally no one knows they happen, and no one thinks it important to find out. Since natural abortions in the first few days are not given moral significance, it is consistent to make early induced abortions legal. Incidentally, the "morning after pill" is a contraceptive, not an abortion drug, but there are other drugs that accomplish early abortions. 4. Modern society has needs that differ strongly from those of primitive societies. In primitive societies many people died in childhood. Having many children was required to maintain populations. That is consistent with an instinct to carry pregnancies through to term. Modern societies are far more likely to suffer from overpopulation than underpopulation. Even if first-world nations, raising a child properly is an expensive undertaking for both the parents and society. It is therefore rational to allow legal abortion as a mechanism for population control. Cumulatively, there have been about 50 million abortions in the United States since legalization in 1973. We are having problem caring for the population we have, let alone 50 million more. Abortion should be legal for the good of society. 5. The alternative to legal abortion is illegal abortion. Illegal abortion was rampant before legalization, and if made illegal it would be so again. Illegal abortions are often performed by quacks. 5.1 Making abortion illegal would deter some abortions, but at the expense of injured women. In the United States, the death toll would not be as high as in other countries. In 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion was 235, a limited number as a consequence of real doctors treating the injuries with antibiotics. http://www.straightdope.com.... 235 unnecessary deaths per year is 235 too many. 5.2 Wealthier women could afford to travel to a country where abortion is legal, while the poorer would endure illegal abortions. Making abortion illegal is therefore unjust. If abortion were illegal everywhere, then the toll of death and injury worldwide due to improperly performed illegal abortions would be much higher. 5.3 In the U.S., emergency room treatment is provided to everyone who needs it. Consequently, while death could often be avoided, there would be a substantial drain on medical resources to patch up botched abortions. The abortion decision is a serious one, but it is not one that should be made by government, and certainly not in a broad way that makes all abortion illegal. The resolution is affirmed. |
31 | e5e50ee1-2019-04-18T14:11:28Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | High-carb diets are ideal for health. 1. Processed sugar is bad for you. White sugar is the worse, brown sugar better, molasses better still and treacle best. Fruit is good for you until you juice it then it becomes too much for the digestive system and if the fibre has been removed it is bad. http://paleoleap.com... 2. Most herbivores have 4 stomachs. The point being, that there is a big difference between the average herbivore and a human. Humans and most carnivores have heaps of leisure time in comparison to herbivores which spend most of their waking hours grazing. My opponent was trying to make it seen that humans are closest to herbivores than they are to carnivores. This is untrue. Humans are closest to carnivores with similar sized intestines and stomachs. Eating meat is the fastest way to get a lot of leisure time. When you eat vegetables, it requires a lot of preparation and mucking around. You have to cook vegetables before you can eat them because the human gut can't digest cellulose. http://wellnessmama.com... 3. My opponent has avoided discussing the amount of disease which is caused by high carb diets. Why doesn't he talk about diabetes and obesity which has increased since the introduction of the food pyramid in the 1970's. No, he has avoided discusing this issue because he knows that high carb diets lead to many health problems and diseases. 4. List of most dangerous foods that humans can eat - 1. Artificial sweeteners: Aspartame (i.e. Nutrasweet) and Sucralose (i.e. Splenda), Saccharin (i.e. Equal)- neurotoxins that cause brain tumors and increased cravings for sweets leading to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity (yes, contrary to popular belief, "diet" or "sugar-free" foods make you fat). 2. Hydrogenated oils, partially hydrogenated oils " cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. 3. Fried foods (this includes chips) " cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. 4. MSG (monosodium glutamate - i.e. hydrolyzed yeast extract, hydolized protein, etc.) " MSG is a neuroexcitotoxin which hyperstimulates brain cells, causing them to burn out and die, leading to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer"s and Parkinson"s diseases. 5. Soda pop (Diet and/or Regular) " leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity; also, the phosphoric acid leads to calcium depletion, which leads to osteoporosis. Click here to read what happens to your body when you drink soda. 6. Wheat flour foods (breads, pasta, cakes, cookies, crackers, etc.) " grains cause insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. Gliadin, one of the two main protein components of gluten, is very pro-inflammatory. 7. Cured meats (bacon, sausages, and lunch meats " anything with nitrates, nitrites) " nitrates and nitrites cause cancer (especially leukemia in children). 8. Pasteurized and homogenized milk and milk products (butter, ice cream, yogurt, etc.) " cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. Butter and heavy cream from organic pasture-fed cows is the exception. 9. Sugar " leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity. We must look at refined sugar as the poison it truly is. 10. High fructose corn syrup (found in many foods " too many to list; see "HFCS" article library at www.drkratka.com) " leads to insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity. 11. Artificial Food Colorings " red, blue, and yellow dyes are used widely in many foods. Like MSG, they are neuroexcitotoxins and a contributory factor in attention-deficit disorder and hyperactivity. Note - Complex and Simple Carbohydrates take up positions 6,9 &10. - See more at: http://bonfirehealth.com... |
13 | 8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save This is a peer reviewed report on the costs of producing ethanol using corn, switch grass and wood. It is also the most comprehensive report done so far. There are many reports out there that are used by the proponents of ethanol but most are not peer reviewed and leave out many aspects relating to the actual production and distribution of ethanol. Again this is a peer revived report by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek. Both are peer reviewed scientists http://petroleum.berkeley.edu... This is a peer reviewed report on yucca mountain repository. It describes every aspect of the repository and a final conclusion statement made by the scientists who conducted the study. It is clearly stated that it passes all of their minimum requirements to store nuclear waste for ten thousand years. But goes on to say that more should be done to make it even safer and that more reviews are necessary even though it passes inspection. That means it will never get a license to operate as all of the other recommendations will never ever be able to be met. Scroll to page 63 for the conclusion and recommendation statement. http://www.nea.fr... This blog link will be all of the arguments that will prohibit it from ever being opened yet the repository has passed all of the requirements for theses arguments. I find this to be an acceptable link as I am only using it as an example for arguments against the repository, not as facts about the repository. http://ag.state.nv.us... As I stated before Nuclear Energy is a waste of everyone's time and money and effort. It will never be allowed on a large scale to provide power where it is needed. It is a very cheap and clean source of fuel but is made artificially cost prohibitive be endless regulation and protests and lawsuit injunctions that make it not even worth trying. Hydro and wind power are only useful to the surrounding area within a 100 or 200 mile radius. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these energy sources. The initial start up cost is astronomical and third world countries will not invest in them and are unsuitable for the locations that most third world countries are situated. All electric and hybrid battery cars: The battery life is only guaranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles and that is prorated. It can cost anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 dollars to replace the battery in one of these cars. I used car dealer information and I know you don't like them but forums and blogs about people who own or have owned ether type of these vehicles. I found no discrepancies between the dealer information and these blogs when it comes to the price of these batteries. These batteries are filled with the same hazardous acid that is in regular lead acid batteries but ten to 20 times as much. If these cars end up being massed produced there will be hundreds of thousands of these batteries sitting around and many people who would recycle them for metal content will just dump the acid on the ground to get at the metal to make a few bucks. You have to pay a mechanic to remove it and a disposal fee to get rid of it. Many people will not be willing to pay these fees and just dump the battery some where and sell the car as scrap. When these cars get older they will make their way over seas into the third world countries where the only thing people care about over there is having a job and feeding them selves, They will most assuredly drive these cars until they die and dump the battery acid and scrap the battery and car for metal content. "Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life." I don't believe any of the prediction made by global warming alarmists. But this statement proves a very important point. The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace fossil fuels in the next 20 years. But the world is going to be flooded and the reaming land will be deserts by then. I use the movie An Inconvenient truth as my source for this coming calamity. It is an acceptable source as it won a Pulitzer Prize but is not peer reviewed. The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves. It is the Environmentalists goal to eliminate these things from the planet in 20 to 50 years or they say the planet is doomed and they must start now!! If they do this millions will die of starvation. Whether or not I believe in global warring being caused by man or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is the environmentalists movement to eliminate fossil fuel consumption without having a cost effective alternative fuel source in place and a infrastructure to deliver it. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more. They are worthless as alternative fuel sources if fossil fuels are to be eliminated in the next 20 years if we are going to save this planet from the coming calamity predicted by the environmental movement. People are going to start dying by the millions if restrictions on fossil fuel production aren't lifted. |
38 | d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine 1. Drug legalization Again, these issues are irrelevant. We are not debating drug legalization, we're not even debating the legalization of medical marijuana, and we are arguing whether or not medical marijuana is an effective medicine. Although the points he makes about opium are highly debatable, the points are indeed irrelevant. Looking at the resolution, the red herring of this argument is obvious. It should have no bearing on the voters. 2. Majorities I don't know where my opponent is going with this. He writes the point as if it's a rebuttal, when I have never even mentioned a pol l or country laws. Regardless, he seems to have not looked into the new polls on legalization. Last time I checked, 51% of Americans supported pro-marijuana policies (the number was higher for medical purposes) and only 44% opposed it. Regardless, this point is also irrelevant. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to something's effectiveness. Also, it is subject to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. This point, too, should be disregarded. 3. Biased votes Regardless of any bias, you deserve to lose this debate because you have not posted one relevant argument except "marijuana is bad", you have not even contested (other than a few personal stories) my effectiveness argument! Even a drug czar would admit you are losing this debate – or, at least, in this situation. Also, only about 50% of the members support drug legalization (amongst the active members, the amount it likely slightly higher, maybe 55 or 60%.) My opponent also assumes every person who is "pro drug" will vote against him. Many voters on this site are reasonable and can give objective votes on debates. And, this too is irrelevant to the argument. Even if there is voter bias, how does this prove medical marijuana is bad? 4. It's bad for you I have not doubted this. Marijuana is not a harmless drug, but it's not very harmful either. Yes, marijuana often leads to throat problems and, for some parts of the population, lung problems. As I have argued throughout the debate, using credible sources, the amount of damage marijuana causes is highly over stated by government agencies. Marijuana has unproven links to cancer and often helps treat the diseases it supposedly causes, so it may have a net-zero when used medically (recreational use likely will have no such counterbalancing effect – marijuana usage recreationally is unhealthy). The vast amount of new research supports medical marijuana. My opponent cites one study done by the government. First, it claims there is no proof smoked marijuana is of any benefit, especially for cancer. This claim is empirically untrue. As I stated in round one, there have been more clinical trials proving medical marijuana as a safe medicine than almose every FDA approved drug, but the issue is so politicized the FDA has been forced to ignore these findings. I also wouldn't be surprised if the NIDA has blocked research (which some organizations trying to research the issue have claimed). The 1999 Institute of medicine report noted many benefits of marijuana, but still claimed it was not a "modern" medicine. In their 2000 report, they were able to put more light on even newer research. This report noted, "Considerable clinical evidence indicates that marijuana could yield a variety of useful medicines, especially for nausea, vomiting, and appetite stimulation. THC, in the form of Marinol (dronabinol), has already been used for more than a decade to treat these symptoms in cancer patients and for several years in AIDS patients as well. But other cannabinoids, or combinations of cannabinoids, may prove to be more effective than THC alone. If so, any pharmaceuticals that result from such discoveries could benefit people with AIDS as well as those living with cancer."[1] With so many studies, and prestigious medical associations providing robust research on the topic, I am appalled by the government cherry picking the evidence, ignoring these reports, and they claiming there is no evidence. Sadly, they are the ones with no evidence. Marinol, which my opponent talked about, is much less effective than marijuana, as my quote stated. It takes hours to work, due to its oral route as a pill, and is much weaker than marijuana. Marijuana, being smoked, is more potent (but more potent =/= worse) and is much more effective. Extra strength Tylenol is more potent, but more effective, so is my opponent points this out he might as well ban most medicines with high dosages. The vast preponderance of evidence supports my position; I don't see how my opponents op-eds somehow refute strong research. The IOM 2000 report notes every report published three years before theirs by medical organizations shows evidence is strongly on the side of marijuana's effectiveness. Again, my opponent has provided no strong counter evidence to my claims. He, therefore, has lost the effectiveness point and the debate. My opponent cites one good source on the issue of medical marijuana, a two page pdf with no blatant bias or dishonesty, but it seems to have ignored the 2000 IOM report. The 1999 report essentially said marijuana is bad, it's a good medicine, but marinol is probably better. The 2000 report looked into the evidence published after the IOM report. Although asking for more research, they state marijuana is bad (though how bad it actually is remains uncertain), marijuana is a good medicine, marijuana is better than marinol and other medications [1]. My opponent's reference is a little outdated… CONCLUSION: I think this debate for anyone is obvious. My opponent has engaged in mainly red herrings, and has given little evidence that marijuana is an ineffective medicine (and the evidence he has given is either weak or has been refuted). I strongly urge a pro vote. 1. http://www.nap.edu... |
4 | 784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka |
1 | 1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00009-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed As part of the debate format, in each round one is either affirming one's own case or making a rebuttal. Never both in the same round. This is to save character space. The final round is a conclusion, in which no arguments or rebuttals are made. Each side just makes a case why he felt his arguments were better. If my opponent accepts these conditions then we shall proceed. Definition Collective bargaining – workers do not bargain their salary as an individual, but collectively as an organization, usually through a trade union that represent their interests, using various tactics to obtain higher salaries and benefits, which would fail under individual action. I will use the moral framework of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that an action should be taken If the utility, or well being of society, will be improved overall from that action. I concede that removing collective bargaining would harm employed teachers. However in this policy, the benefit teachers obtain are so low in comparison to the utility society would receive that the good outweighs the bad. I will make the assumption that education benefits society. Education teaches students critical thinking and students learn information that can benefit themselves through a higher salary and benefit society as a whole. Schooling is an issue that affects everyone. Everyone has had to go to school at some point in their life and many parents have children in school. A well educated population is necessary If a nation wants to remain a wealthy nation and to uphold the ideas of the republic. I can embark more on why education is important, but unless questioned, I will assume it is a given. I will also demonstrate that removing collective bargaining rights would increase the efficiency of school systems and would allow for school reforms that would improve education. This benefits society since it reduces costs on education and improves education. It will note why collective bargaining in the private sector is vastly different then collective bargaining in the public sector. The collective bargaining power of unions in the private sector is relatively weak. If a labor union demands higher compensation, the private firm may be unable to deliver it, since the polices can bankrupt the firm. This is the reason why only 6.9% of workers in the private sector are privatized[1]. However, labor unions in the public sector are more powerful because they receive compensation from the state. State programs do not compete fairly against private programs. As a result, 36.2% of public employees are unionized[1]. The state can obtain funds from tax payers, offer their services for 'free', and create laws that either disallow or make it difficult for private companies to enter the market. Private companies can only make a profit If consumers are willing to pay for the product, while the public sector can extract money through force. If one does not want a 'public good', then he or she has to pay for it anyways or else be thrown in jail. Therefore, since the public sector does not need to worry about bankruptcy and acquiring funds as much as the private sector, labor unions can increase the price of their labor and block reform that will improve education. Teacher unions also have incredible political and social power. If a teacher union decides to go on strike then news media and parents will be in a frenzy. Parents will be upset that their child is not getting an education and it will obtain press coverage. Politicians will be blamed, and possibly lose reelection over the ordeal. Therefore, teacher unions can use strikes far more effectively more than almost any other organization. In terms of political power, teacher unions greatly influence public opinion. For example, many people believe the myth that teachers are overpaid, which I will explain later. Parents, teachers, and celebrities were able to create a huge rallies in Washington DC and Wisconsin to support them[2]. Teacher unions use their fees to pay for politician's campaign fees and lobbying. The National Educational Association has spent over 12 million dollars in Washington from 2008-2010. [3] "Coincidentally" , the NEA spent over twice as much money they do normally during the same time period that school choice movement became big and three well made documentary videos advocating school choice and reform. Even liberal president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for dramatically increasing the size of the public sector stated: "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," [4] It is a myth that most teachers are underpaid. As John Stossel segment shows, teachers are paid more than the average wage in America. They also enjoy many perks such as pension plans, job security, and summers off. Hour per hour, teachers make more than psychologist, chemists, and physical therapists. People choose a job based on a number of reasons. However, people are free to choice a job that he or she finds most satisfying or pays well. Nobody is forced to work an 'underpaid' job. If teachers were indeed 'underpaid' we would expect to see a shortage of teachers and people would not apply to be a teacher. However, If anything there is a surplus of qualified teachers. In some cities, there is a 12:1 ratio between applications and open jobs [5]. These statistics are from BEFORE the great recession. This surplus is bad since potential teachers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attain a degree in education, only to find that there are no jobs in education. It should also be noted that it is nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher. While in most occupations, If one is bad in one's profession or behaves poorly, he or she is fired. However, due to tenure, the legal fees, amount of steps and length of time it takes to fire a tenured teacher makes the process impossible. Accordingly, approximately only 1 in 1000 of teachers are fired while most other occupations have a much higher firing or turnover rate. For example 1 in every 57 doctors will lose their medical license[6]. Teacher unions have also successful been blocking educational reforms that would improve America's education. For example, school vouchers have been proven to improve children's reading, math and writing comprehensibility however teacher unions are taking measures to make sure these reforms do not occur[7]. Likewise, teacher unions also blocking reforms to use merit-pay. For example, in Washington DC, the school chancellor offered a plan in which teachers could give up tenure-pay for the opportunity to potential earn as much as $144,000 based on merit per year. The union would not even allow the issue to come to a vote. [6] With improvements in technology and access to capital, almost all goods and services have improved since 1970. Modern cars, phones, televisions, and computers have all improved. Many of these products are even cheaper than they were 40 years ago. However, education has become more expensive and test scores have not improved at all[8]. It is because the collective bargaining power is so strong that America has not seen any improvements in education. Removing collective bargaining power would improve schools, and reduce cost on education that taxpayers have to pay through coercion. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://www.youtube.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] |
21 | b567d77e-2019-04-18T12:56:04Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. My opponent has dropped every issues except the ozone layer. I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there is conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals were the cause. [3][4] "There is now conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals are the cause of ozone depletion in the stratosphere, since chemicals found there could come from no other source (Russell et al., 1996). The reduction and elimination of production of many ozone-depleting substances in industrialize" [3] Thanks for the debate. 3. http://www.un.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov... |
Subsets and Splits