query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
38 | e00385e6-2019-04-18T19:34:57Z-00002-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp Because my opponent keeps jumping around the topics, and has ignored the case I have made, I will address his points one by one (or try to): "So realistically he must prove that both can be legalized, or else I win this round." -Indeed I have shown in both R1 and R2 arguments that the Federal government can legalize either or both. I have shown the Federal Government can legalize industrial hemp by defining it as strains of cannabis containing less than 1% THC, and by specifying it's difference from the drug cannabis, as international law so differentiates. I have shown that medical marijuana can be legalized for prescription by rescheduling as a Schedule II controlled substance. I have shown that the Supreme Court can rule in favor of petitions presented before the court determining that the prohibition of marijuana is unconstitutional, legalizing both. I have shown that Congress can pass bills (like HR 5843 and others) legalizing marijuana for personal use. I have provided many references in so doing. "To sustain it's legitimacy, the United States government must place the protection of its citizens above all else." -My opponent completely ignores my contention that the legalization of alcohol and tobacco violates his stipulation, as both substances are not only harmful, but cause more annual deaths than marijuana- which causes none. (http://www.webmd.com...) "In the current U.S. medical practices, nowhere is the use of tobacco or alcohol implemented to ensure patient care." -Your argument for governmental legitimacy was not bound to medicine. Indeed alcohol and nicotine are drugs, yet provide no medical benefit, and much more harm than marijuana (I have already provided sources). And if it was bound to medicine, I also mentioned the Schedule II drugs cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines- all drugs proven to be much more harmful than marijuana. "Additionally, morphine, does not carry better-known carcinogens than tobacco, and is not notorious for it's effects on the short-term memory and the reproductive system, as marijuana is." -Morphine is much more harmful than marijuana, causing sever side effects, including death. Morphine causes chemical dependence, which marijuana does not.(http://www.pain-relief-medication.info...) Morphine is an opioid like heroin, and in some cases is more dangerous than heroin. (http://opioids.com...) "i would really like to see the source that indicates cocaine is used regularly in contemporary medical practice, if you could provide that it would be great" -I didn't say cocaine was used regularly, rather that it is a Schedule II controlled substance which makes it legal to prescribe. (http://www.usdoj.gov...) It has a much higher disposition for abuse than marijuana, causes many more side effects, and has a much more terrible effect on our society. (http://www.emedicine.com...) "My Opponent concedes the fact that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, which is one of the criteria classifying it as a substance 1 drug, as he stated in his first speech." -I did not concede this point. I merely did not argue this point as it is irrelevant to rescheduling to Schedule II, which also lists this as a criteria, and it is irrelevant to the other points I made. "does not once negate or even address the fact that marijuana has dangerous carcinogens that have been proven to lead to an unexpectedly high number of users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx." -If the readers wish, they can research my opponents sources and see that they discredit his own argument.(http://books.google.com...) -From his own source: "No association was found between marijuana use, and any other type of cancer, including cancers normally linked to tobacco smoking". I did not initially argue this point because the debate is not about the dangers of marijuana, rather whether or not the Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. "how is the government fulfilling its obligations to protect its citizens when it allows doctor's to prescribe cancer-causing medications?" - Marijuana has not been proven to cause cancer, but other medicines and medical procedures can cause cancer. The most commonly used treatment for cancer, chemotherapy, can cause cancer (http://www.medicinenet.com...) as it is a form of ionizing radiation, as well as x-rays. "marijuana is severely dangerous" -First, my opponent has not proves this. His own sources state otherwise. -Second, this is irrelevant to the question "can the Federal government legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp". "Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the legalization of marijuana is not constitutional, nor does it connote it." -Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the legalization of tobacco is not constitutional, yet it is legal. Marijuana became illegal in the United States in 1970 under the Controlled Substances Act. It was previously regulated under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, but until then it was completely legal. The Federal Government indeed has the power to legalize medical marijuana and industrialized hemp. It has already rescheduled Marinol, or synthetic THC (Tetra-hydro-cannabinol, the active chemical found in marijuana), as Schedule III (http://www.erowid.org...). Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Federal law in the United States preempts conflicting state and local laws. Because the possession and use of drugs is not codified in the US Constitution, laws prohibiting the possession, use, and sale of drugs fall under the US Code of Federal Regulations. The FDA, DEA, and the Controlled Substances Act fall under Title 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations. The US Code of Federal Regulations is sometimes referred to as Administrative Law. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the different Federal agencies are permitted to promulgate detailed rules and regulations through a public "rulemaking" process where the public is allowed to comment, known as public information. After a period of time, the rules and regulations are usually published in the Federal Register.(http://www.law.fsu.edu..., http://www.gpoaccess.gov..., http://www.whitehouse.gov...)(http://usgovinfo.about.com...) HR 5842 is a House Resolution that proposes the rescheduling of marijuana under the CSA (http://www.govtrack.us...) HR 5843 would remove Federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana, and would limit state penalties to a $100 fine under the Controlled Substances Act (http://www.govtrack.us...). The Federal government has criminalized marijuana under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal Government the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce. Additionally, under the Supremacy Clause, any state law in conflict with federal law is not valid. The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21, sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. (I've provided several links for this title). Because it is the Controlled Substances Act enacted by USFG that illegalized marijuana, the USFG most definitely has the power to legalize medical marijuana and/or industrial |
38 | 6231af08-2019-04-18T14:56:41Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana Legalization Introduction:Though many have deviated from past standards opposing marijuana legalization, I still stand firm in my belief that marijuana should not be legalized. As I will show in the continuation of this round, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons as to why this illegal drug should not be legalized.C1) Marijuana is a harmful drug.No matter what camouflage or disguise is plastered onto it, the substance remains the same: a drug. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. Essentially, all drugs have harmful effects. This holds true in regards to marijuana. The University of Washington documents its respiratory effects. "A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011)." [1]But the problem doesn't stop there. The same article explains, "Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988)." [1] Because the use of marijuana is directly linked to cigarette usage, these statistics are relevant as well.Beyond that, other health problems come from marijuana, including cancer. This is once again detailed by the University of Washington. "Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene [than cigarettes], both known carcinogens (Tashkin, 2013). Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013)." Cancer is also a problem when considering the legalization of marijuana. With so many individuals already affected by cancer, increasing its prevalence is an obvious detriment.Statistically, the potency of the drug is increasing as well. Live Science supports this notion by quoting, "According to research from the Potency Monitoring Project, the average THC content of marijuana has soared from less than 1 percent in 1972, to 3 to 4 percent in the 1990s, to nearly 13 percent today." [2] THC is the intoxicating chemical in marijuana. The increase in this is causing a more powerful and harmful substance.C2) Marijuana legalization would result in an increase of marijuana use.Legalizing a substance, even for strictly medical purposes, is bound to increase use. In fact, the Office of National Drug Control Policy supports this notion. "A recent report from the RAND Corporation, "Altered State," discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering increases in use of the drug." [3] Essentially, the illegal nature of marijuana keeps the prices high. Lower prices would inevitably allow, and even encourage, more people to use the drug. More use encourages more abuse, thereby causing more people to be affected by the aforementioned concerns and health complications.Although alcohol use is vastly more than marijuana use, legalization would close the gap. Moreover, previous experience with attempts to legalize other drugs (such as Oxycontin) have proven faulty and unsuccessful. Even if controlling methods were implemented, they weren't effective in regulating even legal use.C3) Legalization of marijuana reverses moral values.Although many claim that marijuana is beneficial in medical fields, there is not strong support for this notion. In fact, the Buffalo News points this out. "There is not an adequate base of research that shows marijuana is effective for treating any serious medical condition. Therefore, no major group of medical experts supports the use of smoked marijuana for treatment of health problems." [4] This shows medical marijuana ineffective. If this is true, marijuana is left to only harm individuals. Thus, legalizing marijuana would promote the harm of individuals rather than the assistance.If marijuana is legalized to increase revenue, and fabricate a better economy, it serves to value economics above humanity. Morality, however, values humanity inexplicably and irrefutably above the economy. Rhetorically, if humanity is being devalued solely to value economy, what is the need for an economy if humanity is being harmed? In reality, there isn't a need for economy in this scenario.Since legalization of this drug does devalue humanity, any economic benefits are equally countered by the subsequent devalue of humanity.C4) Previous legalizations have had adverse effects.Perhaps the most popular legalization to date, in the US, is Colorado. While many share success stories of the legalization, we find that more relevant are the detrimental effects that are widespread and prevailing. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report titled "The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: the Impact" that detailed few important consequences of the legislation. Among others, key findings included: "The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally." [5] These drastic and dire statistics show that the supposed "benefits" of legalizing marijuana fall without merit, when compared to the detriments and harms.Furthermore, the governor of Colorado regrets the decision to legalize marijuana. The Daily Mail documents this phenomenon, "Speaking on CBNC, the 62-year-old Democrat said: 'If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, "This was a bad idea".'" [6] As the governor realizes the fault with legalizing marijuana, and we understand the consequences that have arisen from the legalization, we must negate the resolution and oppose legalizing marijuana.Rebuttals:My opponent first speaks of Colorado, but I have already effectively shown, with evidence (something my opponent lacked) that this claim does not hold water. He next brings up the fact that people should have the freedom to smoke. However, when economy is valued before humanity, and the preservation of citizens (which is a governments foremost duty), we find that morality is twisted. Instead, humanity should be valued before economy.His next argument assumes that we should trust his claims rather than credible sources. He has not shown evidence to back up his claims, thus, they fall without merit. Furthermore, even if not as severe, marijuana does have "buzz" and is detrimental (as shown in C1).He claims that marijuana has medical benefits, but as I showed in C3, this is not scientifically sound. The support for this notion is weak. Besides, I have also brought up multiple arguments detailing and proving that marijuana is a health hazard.Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that legalizing marijuana would be an inferior option to the popular status quo. Thus, from a moral and pragmatic standpoint, we are fully obligated to negate the resolution, and keep marijuana illegal in the US.Sources: [1] http://adai.uw.edu...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://www.iowa.gov...[4] http://www.buffalonews.com...[5] http://www.rmhidta.org...[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... |
23 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
8 | 47e4d062-2019-04-18T18:02:31Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Why abortion should be legal Abortion shouldn't be legal to those who had consensual sex with a man and happened to get pregnant. It seems like my opponent and I both agree that abortion should be legal to those who were either raped, apart of incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. But the line must me drawn in the sand when it comes to those who made their choice by having sex and got pregnant. My opponent argues that a woman should be allowed to change her mind when it comes to having a child, well she can change her, but she can't just kill a child so she doesn't have raise it. One of the roles of the government is to protect the lives of their people and that goes even toward a underdeveloped baby. The child is still human and the last time I checked killing a human is murder. Sources- http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://carm.org... |
32 | 3a55f4ac-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00001-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Uk voting age I guess if you forfeited, there is no point for me to further support my argument. |
32 | aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Should the voting age be lowered 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said "If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one |
40 | e03e7a04-2019-04-18T14:42:05Z-00008-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Hello all! This debate is on the abolishment of the death penalty.Definitionsdeath penalty: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. abolishment: to end the observance or effect of LayoutRound 1: acceptanceRound 2: ALL arguments presentedRound 3: rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 4: rebuttal pt. 2 (no new arguments)Round 5: conclusion/closing statements (no new arguments)Please note that this debate will be carried out in a formal manner, with extensive arguments that are expected to be well-written and respectable.--------------I accept this debate, and will argue on the pro side, claiming that the death penalty should, or ought to be abolished.I await acceptance of this debate. |
36 | a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00005-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Lets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, "I just lost the tournament", or "I'm such an idiot". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked. |
7 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
9 | 16833a0f-2019-04-18T14:31:17Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms (rebuttal for first paragraph): But how does it decrease such rates? You are stating the effects without the causes. You need to explain each point because it seems as if you are rambling about a random tangent you do not have any idea about. It does not help that you did not provide any citations or evidence. Therefore, who is Virginia Draa exactly? Is she biased? Does her school allow uniforms? What is her credibility? What exact study is that from? Because, right now I do not have a counterargument for this section if you are unwilling to explain your points. (rebuttal for second paragraph): Once again, WHAT STUDY? It seems like you are making this up. You may want to read my first paragraph again because it seems as if you have not already: We already have catholic and private schools - usually those schools require their students to wear uniforms to attend that certain school. Then we have public schools - which do not require uniforms. At the current state we are in, everyone has the CHOICE if they want to go to a private school and wear a uniform or go to a public school and don't. Ammendment 1 grants every american citizen the following freedoms: Speech, Press, and Religion. People dress to represent themselves as a person. Their clothing tells peers who they are through expression. How someone dresses is their freedom of speech, because they are speaking of themselves through their clothing. If all schools required students to wear uniforms - then our younger generation will have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. This is against the law and is not allowed - or puts a good name upon our country in question - USA. At least where we are at the moment, students have the CHOICE if they want to go to a school that requires them to wear a uniform or not. They CHOOSE if they accept the fact that if they go to a spacific school, then they may not have all of their rights while atttending. Where we are now is fair, everyone have freedom of choice, and the choise of what to do with their rights; and that is what being an american citizen is all about. Even if schools did want to require their students to wear uniforms - where would they get the money to buy such uniforms on manufacture them? You see, if this were reality then it would be a MAJOR financial, and constitution violation and issue." " A 1999 study conducted by experts from Texas Southern University showed that bullying incidents increased by as much as 12%, after the implementation of mandatory uniform wearing. Echoing this sentiment is a 2007 study published in the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice. According to the research, assaults increased by as much as 14 incidences yearly, right after the introduction of school uniforms. A similar finding was discovered by the Office of Education, Evaluation, and Management of the Miami-Dade County. Violence, especially in the middle schools, increased by a hundred fold after the students were required to wear uniforms." (mentioned below as well).(rebuttal for third paragraph): What about poor families who cannot afford such uniforms? They cannot afford a certain outfit and therefore cannot recieve education due to their unwealthiness? That is DISCRIMINATION and it is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as I have mentioned previously. Once again, where are you getting your information from? Please site your evidence. "People who are for uniforms say that it promotes social conformity, so the less-to-do don't have to be pressured to keep up with their well-off contemporaries. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. They still are forced to spend because the school requires their children to wear costly uniforms."More facts and statistics:"The path to adult development is honed throughout the duration of early schooling. However, your transition towards adulthood can be hindered with uniforms. Since it is mandatory, you are not given the chance to decide for yourself, which is one of the hallmarks of adulthood. You know you are an adult when you are given the freedom to choose – whether you like this or that. When you were young, you know you are not an adult yet because your parents (aka the 'adults') made the decision for you. However, when you are restricted to wearing uniforms in school, you are denied the opportunity to make decisions for yourself. After all, you do not have a choice because the others have already made it for you.""Uniforms aim to give everybody a homogenous look, right? Instead of improving a student's self-image because he looks just like the others, it actually does the opposite. Students have different weights, body types and heights. Whenever one looks at himself in the mirror, he depreciates his self-image because he feels like he doesn't look his best. Unfortunately, this case is often seen in girls, who feel 'embarrassed' when they go to school in uniforms. According to development psychologists, ladies have the huge tendency to compare how they look in uniforms. This is especially the case when the student sees herself to have a curvy or plus-size body. This also happens to girls who deem themselves very short or very tall.""A 1999 study conducted by experts from Texas Southern University showed that bullying incidents increased by as much as 12%, after the implementation of mandatory uniform wearing. Echoing this sentiment is a 2007 study published in the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice. According to the research, assaults increased by as much as 14 incidences yearly, right after the introduction of school uniforms. A similar finding was discovered by the Office of Education, Evaluation, and Management of the Miami-Dade County. Violence, especially in the middle schools, increased by a hundred fold after the students were required to wear uniforms.""Short skirts can sometimes be too short, that a gust of wind can easily expose your underpants. Some uniforms are made from unpleasant fabrics that will make you itch from the first class to the last class. Some are so badly-designed that they can make the wearer look bigger or pudgier. Yes, there are so many things that can make uniforms so horrendously uncomfortable.""Those who are in favor of uniforms believe that they are cheaper alternatives, because the students have to wear them every day. That is actually a point of contention, as uniforms are very costly too! In fact, Americans spend about $249 on uniforms yearly. When you compound all the people that have to buy school uniforms, it totals to $1 billion annually. That's the cost of the Chicago Cubs, LA Lakers, and the Toronto Maple Leafs (each team, of course.) Heck, you can buy the Solomon Islands for $1 billion.""Children are always taught to break free and stand out. But with uniforms, the schools are actually lobbying for the opposite. Uniforms actually force students to kowtow to the rules of conformity. After all, a pupil needs to wear something that is prescribed for everybody, not something that expresses his individuality.People who are for uniforms say that it promotes social conformity, so the less-to-do don't have to be pressured to keep up with their well-off contemporaries. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. They still are forced to spend because the school requires their children to wear costly uniforms." "The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees one the freedom of religion, assembly, and right to petition. Most importantly, it assures a citizen's freedom to expression. Unfortunately, this is inherently violated by requiring the students to wear uniforms. Freedom of expression is not just about saying what you want to say, it's also about seeking and imparting ideas, regardless of limits and boundaries. Expressing your ideologies, beliefs and philosophies, unfortunately, are hindered by school uniforms. That's because you are forced to wear something you don't believe in. You are no longer given a chance to express your ideas, which you can impart simply by choosing the clothes you like to wear.""There have been numerous polls made to determine the acceptance of school uniforms, and most of them show that students are against them. Take the case of the Harford County Public School students, wherein 87.9% are in strong disfavor of the mandatory uniform system. The parents of school children feel the same way as well. According to the Rasmussen Reports, 47% of parents are against school uniforms, compared to the 41% who are in favor of school dresses. 12% still remain undecided on the issue."Citations: http://www.listland.com... |
41 | 1c33544e-2019-04-18T13:45:05Z-00000-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Trump made his money through bankruptcy I.........have nothing to say......... My opponent has won and I forfeit this debate. My opponent has proved me wrong and changed my mind. I chose this debate out of no where though........ Good Work, Nzm |
32 | c71796d-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00019-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | The vote will be illegitimate. The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the people. Representative democracy makes the further basic assumption that citizens are capable of making important and informed decisions when they vote. To suggest otherwise is elitist and undemocratic. improve this |
19 | 6335c4fa-2019-04-18T13:04:41Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage I. MarriageMy opponent claims that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman and goes on to say that the Supreme Court unjustly considered gay marriage to be valid. My opponent fails to explain why marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman and how it was unjust to consider same-sex marriage valid. My opponent also provides the definition of marriage that blatantly contradicts his argument. Then, my opponent says that traditional marriage is the backbone of the United States and that our founding fathers were Christians. Just because our founding fathers were Christian doesn't mean that they were against gay marriage, per se. Even if they were against it, that doesn't mean that we should blindly follow their view because it's their view. Also, not all Christians are against gay marriage. In fact, the percentage of people who support gay marriage is only growing as the years go by, as yes, this does include Christians. [1]My opponent then says that a child needs a mother and a father to be raised properly. Other research shows a different story. In fact, children raised by homosexual parents measure up with their peers. [2]II. Homosexuality is a choiceThis whole argument sums up to my opponent saying that God would never create someone who's gay, as it's seen as a sign in The Bible. However, he provides absolutely no scientific evidence that being gay is a choice or even that God is real. He then says that being gay is a learned habit from gay parents. This claim is absolutely absurd. He basically is implying that being gay is contagious or that you just pick it up if you see it happening around you. Neither of these arguments hold any weight, as being gay isn't a disease [3] or a choice of any kind. [4]Also, I'd like to ask my opponent two questions.1) What about the ridicule that gays and lesbians face? Would they really want to deal with the trauma of exclusion and abuse?2) Assuming you're straight, did you choose to be heterosexual? If so, why?III. EqualityMy opponent then says that the LGBT community was fighting for equality, despite being equal before. This is a blatant lie. There was a way that homosexuals were unequal compared to straight couples: they were unable to marry! My opponent even quotes The Declaration of Independence, in which it states that all men are created equal. [5]One more question for my opponent: how does gay marriage affect your religious freedom? Also, I'd like to point out that the article my opponent cites is heavily biased, as it's written by an obviously homophobic Christian. [6, 7] Here's a quote from the article to prove my point. "It is unpatriotic, to say the least, to propagate as a 'constitutional right,' that which our founders called an 'infamous crime against nature,' punishable by death or dismemberment."How far we've fallen." [6]***I look forward to the rest of this debate. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://thinkprogress.org...[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.takepart.com...[4]http://www.newsweek.com...[5]http://www.archives.gov...[6]http://freedomoutpost.com...[7]http://freedomoutpost.com... |
23 | 7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00005-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate! |
47 | d81957dd-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | should homework be allowed I think homework should be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous. Firstly, it's beneficial to the students. Homework helps kids understand what is being taught by giving them experience. It also helps kids remember what they were taught earlier by making them use what they've learned. Secondly, banning homework would be ridiculous. Are we seriously going to make that a law? The government is already a little too involved in the private lives of it's citizens, and this would go beyond even that. Also, banning homework would demand that you enforce that in not only public schools, but also with private schools and home-schoolers. Telling a private school that they can't issue homework would be unreasonably interfering with a private institution, which the government has no right to do. As for home-schoolers, one could say that all the work they do is homework, as it's all done at home! In conclusion, homework needs to be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous. |
38 | d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like "It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication. |
2 | ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00000-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | kids shouldent vape If parents are so irresponsible to let their kids vape who can stop them and if they have no nic in it its just like flavored air |
32 | c0900fa2-2019-04-18T13:00:22Z-00006-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Mandatory Voting I accept all definitions and rules my opponent placed. Best of luck to my opponent. May the best man win. |
45 | 8271f233-2019-04-18T19:39:20Z-00000-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Cloning should stay banned "Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago. " That is my point right there. The fact that is does not explicitly mention cloning technologies makes biblical interpretations irrelevant. It would be an unreliable source to derive a valid decision from. "but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted. " Alright, perhaps at the time it was originally written, it may have been meant to be interpreted. However, simply because it may have been meant to be interpreted for future usage does not necessarily mean it should currently be. "The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God. " If that were the case, then humans defy the bible each and every day. In order to produce new life, humans reproduce. This power resides in the power of the reproductive systems in humans. Thus, humans do indeed have the power to create new life. In fact, even every second a new cell is formed in humans, new life is created. Indeed, humans do have the power to create life. For all these reasons mentioned, they already invalidate my opponent's claim, nullifying the instigator's argument. "The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american. " The point is, regardless of whether or not this country was founded upon religious principles or not, a secular nation SHOULD still be/continue to be implemented. As well, the major universities mentioned by my opponent, though they may have been founded upon religious affiliations, eventually became secular in nature. However, even if the contrary were true, it would not support my opponent's argumentation, as it would be fallacious. The logical fallacy being used could be considered argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. That is, merely because a major university had such affiliation does not justify a country doing the same. Regarding the separation of church and state, it allows the country to have logical values, rather than religious ones. Logical values are values inherent and ameliorative to all of the society, while religious ones may only serve a selective, small population. It is better, and more logical, to serve the society as a whole, instead of only the religious. Again, values can still be adhered to in a secular nation, having just as much merit, if not more, than that of a non-secular nation. The concept of ideals works just the same. Again, I am not so sure what the explicit truth is on the nation being founded upon religious values, but it would be irrelevant anyhow. Even if it were founded upon any religious principles, all that would do is give an illogical rational to lawmakers as they create bills; essentially, this country has multiple religions, and no single one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, it can be derived that incorporating religion, while the nation has freedom of religion, into federal laws is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its entire society as a whole collective, not just of a particular religion. That would be discriminatory, which is unethical. Thus, the separation between religion and government is of essence. "How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning. " The organs could come from stem cells (whether adult, embryonic, or similar reproducing cells), upon working to create optimal efficiency in cloning technological methodology. The definition of cloning, though, can be considered to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. However, I think conventional methods still technically have the egg cell's mitochondrial DNA. However, even so, in order to minimize the potential of tissue/organ rejection as an immune response, it could prove useful to clone (same genes) in order to produce valuable tissues/organs necessary. These results could yield countless successes, and save many lives. The point is, though, here, that cloning technologies would still be necessary to generate new tissues or organs awaiting transplants. Cloning is thus a valuable tool for the society, and should be encouraged by the government. Logic dictates a CON vote. I would also ask that potential voters, if they would like to, leave comments regarding their vote preference and reasons for it for this debate. |
50 | 4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn't.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they're intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda's UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that "relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%" [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That's potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you're eligible. This can lead to what some call the "cliff effect": once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, "[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range." [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can't climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here's a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn't happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that's not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org... |
30 | 30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00005-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed Carry on College Campuses Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed. |
26 | 440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00009-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Education: Testing Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org... |
36 | db0ae60a-2019-04-18T13:11:04Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Running is a Sport 'I'm talking about competitive races' This ultimately defeats the purpose of this debate. You're trying to relate to something that IS a sport which is based on running, you're supposed to convince me that running is a sport. |
39 | 6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00004-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be increased You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: "Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage " even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession." As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org... |
37 | 2f07394f-2019-04-18T18:03:53Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | America should expand nuclear energy production. Rebuttal "My opponent never really attacks...still stands." Unlike France, the United States had once experienced the nuclear disaster in the past (Three Mile Island incident). Unlike France, Americans have abundant natural reserves. Pro"s contention is strong only if the two countries are alike, but Pro has yet included the relevant evidence to prove it so. "My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters...and no nuclear damage from Sandy is proof" Pro"s argument inevitably conveyed a false impression that the Fukushima disasters should be solely attributed to the design flaw, and since the United States would build new reactors with no pre-mentioned flaw, it is plausible to assume that the Fukushima disasters would not be repeated in the U.S. Pro, however, ignored the alternative explanation of the Fukushima disasters: human incapability of defending natural disasters. Japanese government well realized the design flaw and there was huge redundancy to cover the safety issue. But even so, the Japanese government still failed to secure the reactor during the Tsunami. [1] The reactors that failed in Japan are Mark 1 boiling water reactors designed by General Electric in the 1960s. Th Achilles heel in a boiling water reactor has to do with its cooling system. The main coolant in the nuclear reactor is water which is circulated through the electric pumps system. If the electric pumps lose power, the water inside the nuclear reactor would continue boil off. If enough water boils off, the nuclear core would get melted. In the worst case, the molten fuel, along with highly toxic substance, get released into the surrounding environment. [1] Because of this known vulnerability, there is huge redundancy around the pumps and their supply of electricity. In summary, there are three layers of extra-protections: Power can come from the power grid if the main reactor is shutdown. If that fails, there are additional backup diesel generators. If that fails as well, there is a backup batter system. Even with all this redundancy, the electric pump system still failed. During the incoming natural disasters, the nuclear power plants were immediately shut down. After the primary source of electricity was gone, rectors switched to power grid mode. However, the power grid was also disconnected because of the perennial earthquake. The secondary source of electricity was therefore gone. Then when the tsunami hit, the unexpected water levels from the tsunami causes the diesel generators to fail. The third defense was gone as well. Then it left the last layer of redundancy - batteries. But batteries were sized to last for only a few hours, and when the last defense was breached, water in the nuclear reactor continued boiling off. Hydrogen gas was quickly generated and accumulated, and it eventually exploded inside the reactor building. [1] Fukushima incident is not an atypical case. The nuclear power plant that near the NY city is identical to one in Fukushima Dai-ichi. Therefore, both nuclear reactors are subjected to the same safety concerns. Citied by Exelon"s statement, if the water level rose over 7 feet, there is a potential for the core to overheat. The water levels eventually reached a peak of 7.4 feet, but fortunately did not persist before it was down to 5.8 feet. If Sandy were stronger, it is not unreasonable to assume that another disaster would ensue. Given the continuation of global warming and climate change, human may face more Sandy type storms in the near future. [2] Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster had sent a resounding message to all Americans: a well designed nuclear reactor can still fail catastrophically. A good advise is: Do not play the game unless you afford to lose. "If several stations are commissioned at once...a sort of bulk discount." Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom does not hold in the case of nuclear reactors. The more nuclear reactors that government attempts to build, the more it costs. The increased costs are largely due to a fierce worldwide competition for the resources, commodities and manufacturing capacity needed in the design and construction of new power plants. There are no compelling reasons for the government to pursue such an unsustainable energy policy, especially when there are better alternatives available. [3] "My opponent says that the exuberant cost...what he stated." I urge Pro to present more evidence regarding the cost of nuclear reactors. It is a known fact that cost of nuclear reactors always exceed the estimated budgets, sometimes by a margin of 200% ~300%. There are many things that work great on paper, but eventually fail miserably in reality. [3] "He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy" Two points: First, the numbers are at best misleading, and at worst devious. Coal industry, for example, is labor intense industry. Due to the high number of people employed in coal industry and relatively low efficiency in coal process, it is not surprised that its mortality rate is much higher than the rest of industry. Instead of measuring the relative safety by deaths per trillion KWhr, the paper should use percentage of deaths calculated by number of deaths over total number of employees. [4][5] Second, the safety concerns should not be measured by number of death alone. As what had happened in Chemobyl nuclear disaster: the number of death resulted from the explosion was no more than 40 people, but the incident was rated the worst nuclear disaster in human history. During a radioactive fire that burn for 10 days, 190 tons of highly toxic materials were expelled into the atmosphere. At the time of the accident, about 7 million people lived in contaminated territories, including 3 million children. Today, millions of people continue to exposed to high doses of radiation that would result in tumors, genetic mutations, and sever damage to the immune system. [5][6] In terms of long-term health impact, thyroid cancer in children has increased in the contaminated area since the disaster. The World Health Organization predicts that over 50,000 children will develop the disease because of the incidents. Moreover, incidence of leukemia has increased 50% in children and adults. In addition to thyroid cancer and leukemia, UNICEF reports that between 1990 and 1994, nervous system disorders increased by 43%; cardiovascular diseases by 43%; bone and muscle disorders by 62%; and diabetes by 28%. Number of birth defects and genetic mutations were also reported increased dramatically follow the incidents. Besides the long term health concerns, after the Chernobyl accident, almost 400,000 were forced leave their home for their own safety. The long term health social concerns cannot be captured by by mortality rate alone. [5][6] Therefore it is irrational to measure the safety issue merely on the basis of mortality rate. In the case of nuclear safety, the aforementioned mortality rate is next to meaningless. "My opponent never says anything that...and the option is nuclear" Nuclear is not the only option anymore. There is a range of cost-effective and more secured clean energy available: Solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. Natural gas is probably the best choice in the future. I also ask Pro to address Waste issue. It is one of the biggest issue that people stress frequently. Thank you. [1]. http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2]. http://www.reuters.com... [3]. http://www.synapse-energy.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com... [5]. http://thyroid.about.com... [6]. http://www.chernobyl-international.org... |
45 | 652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The Penny 1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win |
42 | e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Tennis is better than hockey Hockey is better then tennis becuase there is more action. in tennis there are only two players hitting the ball back and forth were in hockey there are 5 players on the ice for each team plus a goaly. In hockey you always have to be in very good shape. your cardio has to be at a very high level. The whole game you will be skating back and forth and changing directions at 100% speed. hockey player also have a lot of strenth. Most of the players, even the ones that look small weigh over 200 pounds of pure muscle. Hockey requires you to be fast, be able to accurately shoot the puck, be able to catch the puck, be able to read players, agility, endurance, toughness, the ability to jump, hitting power, and not to mention this is all done on Ice skates. watch this video and look at all the action. the different shots for a goal, the hits, the fights. all of this is shows why it is better and harder then tennis. http://www.youtube.com... |
39 | b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised. |
3 | f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00006-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Should Gay Marriage be allowed |
10 | 954be27-2019-04-18T15:19:53Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccinations are necessary Thank you for accepting and good luck. I will post my sources at the end. I would like to start off by talking about different types of vaccination, their ingredients, and how they are administered/ work. There are a few different types of vaccines. There are attenuated (live virus), inactive, subunit, toxoid, and conjugate vaccines. Each serves a different purpose and is extremely beneficial. The attenuated vaccine contains microbes of a certain disease or bacteria that has been weakened in a lab so the disease is strong enough so the body can fight back, but not so strong any damage is done. These vaccines are the closest to natural infection so they are able to essentially teach the body how to overcome it. Though these vaccines are extremely effective, there is the slight chance (as with anything) that the microbe will mutate and cause disease. These anomalies generally occur in people with extremely weak immune systems. In a healthy person, the body learns how to fight the disease but doesn't get sick. Inactive vaccines are created by using heat and chemicals to destroy the microbes. These vaccines are not as strong as live vaccines but they work better for those with weaker immune systems. Because they elicit a weaker immune response, these shots are administered over a period of time with several boosters. They don't require refrigeration so they can be shipped anywhere, essentially. Subunit vaccines only contain certain antigens of a microbe, the ones that will cause the strongest immune reaction. As it does not contain the whole microbe, there is a severely decreased chance of a complication. Recombinant subunit vaccines were created and tested to treat hepatitis B. Scientists testing this vaccine inserted specific antigens into bakers bread and the yeast reproduced the antigens allowing them to collect more. Doctors and scientists are currently testing similar techniques to treat hepatitis C. Toxoid vaccines are used when a toxic bacteria is concerned. When the body is introduced to the toxoid created in a lab (harmless to the body) it learns to fight it off, creating an immune response. The body produces antigens that lock onto and block the toxoid. These vaccines have been used to treat diphtheria and tetanus. Conjugate vaccines are used to fight against bacterium with a polysaccharide coating. Many harmful bacteria have this coating, and the immune system, especially those of infants and young children, do not recognize it immediately, allowing the body to become sick. These vaccines are administered in small doses so the immature immune system becomes familiar with these bacteria and learns to fight it. When being made, scientists use antigens and microbes of the bacteria that the body will recognize and be able to fight. Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) is a conjugate vaccine. Many people have recently been refusing to get their children, or themselves, vaccinated. Their theories about vaccines are wrong. For example, many people believe that if other people are getting vaccinated, then they don't need to be. Skipping vaccinations can put children or babies at risk for possibly fatal diseases. In order for vaccines to work, there needs to be a certain number of people vaccinated. Scientists estimate that, "Unfortunately, the level of immunization required to prevent diseases such as measles from spreading from child to child is high as 95 percent." (Thomas Saari, M.d., Wisconsin Medical School) With many people refusing to vaccinate themselves and their children, there is not enough people vaccinated to provide "herd immunity." Approximately 80% of elementary school children are vaccinated. Though many people believe that because major likenesses are rarely seen in America anymore we don't need vaccines, that is a very dangerous misconception. Though for the most part major disease such as polio are not seen anymore, many America communities still have outbreaks of disease such as pertussis and other respiratory diseases. The goal of vaccinatons is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as measles and mumps. They protect the public health. When vaccines first became prevalent we saw the eradication of disease like polio. Vaccinations provided protect against diseases that can lead to other serious health complications, and even death. These diseases include rotavirus, hep B, pneumococcal, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hep A, varicella, meningococcal, and influenza. As with any medication, vaccinations can cause a minor reaction like redness or soreness or a low grade fever. None of these side effects result in long term damage, only discomfort for a few days. Professionals have stated that "the proven preventive benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of the minimal side effects associated with them." Vaccinations have been proven to be 90-100% of infections, and people who are 100% immune protect those with weaker systems. Many say that because we have eradicated many disease through vaccines, there is no need for immunizations. This misconception can cost lives, as those diseases are gone because of immunizations. Another myth people have about vaccines is that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism. People say the MMR vaccine contains thimerosal, a chemical that causes the brain disorder. In fact, the MMR virus has never contained thimerosal, and neither have the vaccines for chicken pox or inactive polio. If these vaccines were not administered we would see a rise in diseases that can be contagious and fatal. Though you say you receive vaccines and still get sick afterwards there is no way you do. It is impossible. Let's take the flu virus for example. The flu vaccine is an inactive immunization, so there are antigens from the virus in it. The sick feeling you may get after a shot is only the body fighting the vaccine after being introduced to it. That feeling is only your immune system growing stronger and protecting you but also the people you sit next to and the person you see on the bus or the person who gives you change at a convenience store. Vaccinations are necessary. They may seem like they do nothing because we do not see diseases like polio anymore but we don't see those anymore because we have vaccines. If we didn't have vaccines, we would see an uncontrollable rise in disease and death. |
34 | 7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00003-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Social network sites are all the rage today. They allow people from every corner of the world to interact with each other by sharing pictures, leaving comments and posts, iming each other and accessing their personal information. Although these new aspects of the social networking sites seem harmless, sexual predators are using these options to assault and harass children and teens all over the world. There have been many lawsuits against these networks for failing to provide adequate security and maintenance and for failing their responsibility of protecting their users. Social networking sites create a pool of private information where criminals can access it and use it to steal identities, or portray as a different person. In addition, social networking sites promote negative behavior, as seen with the pro-anorexia groups on facebook, and the juicy campus gossip site which landed a student in jail. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a "growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report." David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because any perceived benefit of social networking is essentially an insignificant stretch, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. |
33 | 6dc1a714-2019-04-18T15:15:29Z-00003-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Should sport become comulsory ResponsiblyIrresponsible - As you can see that my argument was not intended for you, it was intended for another opposition in a different debate (same topic though) I did report and request for it to be deleted, and I also did re-post the debate to the appropriate contender. ) I request that you ignore my previous post and re-submit your case. Thank you |
12 | 7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00005-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Hi Beverlee! Thanks for accepting this debate. I just want to clarify that the scope of this debate is strictly on whether all contraceptives should be classified as preventive care, not preventive care in general nor reproductive health, which has a larger scope than just contraception.For the purpose of this debate, I am defining preventive care as "a pattern of nursing and medical care that focuses on disease prevention and health maintenance. It includes early diagnosis of disease, discovery and identification of people at risk of development of specific problems, counseling, and other necessary intervention to avert a health problem. Screening tests, health education, and immunization programs are common examples of preventive care."(1)Preventive care consists of two basic functions:1. disease prevention 2. health maintenanceSome common methods of attaining said functions are:1. Screening and early diagnosis/identification2. Education and counseling3. Proactive prevention methods such as immunizationsAs you can agree, that is a pretty broad definition and there are definitely some aspects of contraception that can fall into preventive care. However, contraceptives as a whole does not meet the definition of preventive care. FDA-approved methods of contraceptives are "hormonal (e.g., birth control pills), barrier (i.e., diaphragms), emergency contraceptives (i.e., "morning after" pills) and select over-the-counter (OTC) contraceptives."(2) "Certain OTC contraceptives for women are covered at 100 percent including female condoms, emergency contraceptives (Next Choice", Next Choice One-Dose", Plan B One-Step"), and contraceptive film, foam and gel."(3) I will structure my argument around the function of preventive health care and relate it to the 3 FDA-approved functions of contraceptives (as OTC contraceptives fall into one of those three categories).A. Disease PreventionOne type of barrier contraceptive (condoms) does assist in preventing the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD). However, that is just a secondary function. I will argue that STD prevention is not a critical objective for preventive health care, the primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention, and the decision to have sexual relations is a privilege, not a right.Point 1: STDs are not considered a critical objective to preventive health careI would like to highlight some diseases on the CDC website for Preventive Screening recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF):(4)1. Alcohol Misuse2. Chlamydial Infection3. Hepatitis B only for pregnant women4. HIV only for high risk persons5. Obesity in Adults6. Tobacco UseHep B and C are on the list but the USPSTF only recommends Hep B screen for pregnant women and does not recommend or is neither for nor against screening for Hep C. Also, there is a distinct absence of other STDs, such as gonorrhea, meaning that STDs, in general, are not considered part of the preventive care regimen. Point 2: The primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention but pregnancy preventionSee definition of contraceptive. Also, the majority of FDA-approved contraceptives (hormonal, barrier other than condoms, and emergency) do not prevent disease. "The condom is the only form of birth control that also protects against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)."(5)Point 3: Sexual activity is a choice, thus the use of condoms is a responsibility, not privilegeThe decision to be sexually active is a privilege, not right. In fact, abstinence is the only way to prevent the spread of STDs.(6) Just like purchasing care insurance, the cost of condoms for the purposes of STD prevention is the responsibility of the individual. While I fully agree that counseling for obesity or tobacco use should be included as preventive health care, the cost of tools such as gastro-bypass surgery and Nicotine patches are NOT covered by most preventive health care insurance nor required by ACA as preventative coverage. Review the Cigna Preventive Drug List and there is no category for weight loss or tobacco cessation.(7) Therefore, counseling and education on STDs should be covered by preventive care but not contraceptives such as condoms.I do not support full coverage of condoms under the guise of preventive health. Like the cost of maintaining a healthy lifestyle (gym membership, more expensive organic foods), using a condom is a personal responsibility.B. Health MaintenanceThis will probably be a greater point of contention in this debate as there are direct health benefits to the use of some contraceptives for specific individuals. I will argue that contraceptives as a whole do not promote health maintenance because only a few hormonal contraceptives help regulate health in specific circumstances and the use of contraceptives may actually be a health detriment.Point 1. Contraceptives used for health maintenance is limited to specific circumstances and typesOral birth control pills can help regulate numerous issues such as acne(8), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) (a debilitating form of PMS)(9), ease menopausal symptoms/discomfort(10), and even help prevent osteoporosis(11). However, each of these are only representative of a select group of hormonal contraceptives and health situations. Not all hormonal contraceptives are helpful in each of these specific cases. Other contraceptives have no bearing on an individual's health whatsoever. For the sake of clarity, becoming pregnant is not a health maintenance issue for a normal, healthy woman.Point 2. Use of contraceptives can actually be a health detrimentAccording to the World Health Organization, "the birth control pill increases a woman's risk for cancers of the breast, cervix and liver, but it decreases risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers."(12) Additionally, hormone imbalance is an issue where women may experience "anxiety, loss of appetite, insomnia and lack of concentration...sudden weight gain, a reduced sex drive, hot flashes and night sweats"(13) While there are several factors that can contribute to hormonal imbalance, "more commonly, medication such as birth control pills can also throw off your body's chemistry."(14) Other potential side effects of oral contraceptives "may include severe abdominal pain, chest pain, unusual headaches, visual disturbances, or severe pain or swelling in the legs"(15) as well as "sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences."(16)Contraceptives were never designed to be a health maintenance tool. I would support the limited use of certain oral contraceptives to assist in regulating hormones as a preventive health resource, but not all contraceptives in general.(1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.uhc.com..., Page 1(3) ibid.(4) http://www.cdc.gov...(5) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (6) http://www.webmd.com...; last bullet: Consider that not having sex is the only sure way to prevent STDs.(7) http://www.sjcme.edu...(8) http://www.webmd.com...(9) http://www.mayoclinic.com...(10) http://www.lifescript.com...(11) http://www.aafp.org...(12) http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...(13) http://www.sheknows.com...(14) ibid.(15) http://health.nytimes.com...(16) http://www.medicaln... |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. |
10 | ce51e361-2019-04-18T16:31:42Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Edible Vaccines Well, another debate with no arguments and all forfeits. I leave it to the judges to afford conduct points accordingly, and to my opponent, I wish him well in whatever endeavors kept him from engaging in his own debate. |
8 | 6f54d3b4-2019-04-18T19:32:51Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | sould abortion be legal =====Counterarguments===== "this is not used about crime but about responsibility. " ----> Responsibility? So if a kid procrastinates, which means he is irresponsible, should he be punished by law? Or what if I oversleep? The law should be concerned with protecting it's citizens from other citizens, not to try to be a nanny. 1. Life Organism My opponent argues that since a fetus is an organism, then abortion should not be legal. I have two objections to this: A. Life forms aren't necessarily human beings. A plant is an organism. An insect is an organism. Cattle are organisms. So everything I kill a mosquito I should be imprisoned? Everything I eat a salad I should be arrested? Every steak I touch should give me 15-25 years in jail? Preposterous. B. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of a human being. Not all life organisms, such as a fetus, are humans. Thus, abortion should be legal. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has not shown how killing a fetus is murder. He has not shown how killing organisms should be murder or should take importance over the rights of a mother. |
41 | c1fbdad7-2019-04-18T18:01:11Z-00003-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Young should go to abroad for higher studies History: Though the University of Delaware is typically credited with creating the first study abroad program designed for U.S. undergraduate students in the 1920s, the early stages of study-abroad actually began at Indiana University. In the 1870s, IU faculty invited students to attend courses in Switzerland, France, England, Germany, and Italy, in a series of "summer tramps." Studies focused on natural history, language, and culture, and were so academically-oriented that they were eventually offered for college credit. A few decades later, Professor Raymond W. Kirkbride of the University of Delaware, a French professor and World War I veteran, won support from university president Walter S. Hullihen to send students to France to study during their junior year. UD initially refused to fund Kirkbride's travels, and he and Hullihen appealed to prominent public and private figures for support including then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and businessman Pierre S. du Pont. Kirkbride set sail for on July 7, 1923, with eight students for six weeks of intensive language courses in Nancy, France, before moving on to Paris to study at The Sorbonne. The Delaware Foreign Study Plan, which came to be known as the Junior Year Abroad (JYA), was considered a success and was replicated by other U.S. institutions, such as Smith College. In 1948, the Delaware Foreign Study Plan was discontinued due to post-war conditions in Europe and shifting priorities under a new university president. It has since been re-instated in the form of their current study abroad program. Trends: Despite flat overall study abroad numbers, there were notable increases in the numbers of U.S. students going to some of the less traditional destinations for study abroad in 2008/09. Double digit increases to host countries among the top 25 destinations include Argentina, Chile, Denmark, the Netherlands, Peru, South Africa and South Korea. Double-digit decreases among the top 25 host countries include Mexico (which experienced H1N1 virus outbreak that year), Austria and India. The following table represents the top 25 study abroad destinations for U.S. students seeking academic credit in 2007/08 and 2008/09, according to the Institute of International Education.Rank Destination 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 % of Total % Change World Total 262,416 260,327 100.0 -0.8 1 United Kingdom 33,333 31,342 12.0 -6.0 2 Italy 30,670 27,362 10.5 -10.8 3 Spain 25,212 24,169 9.3 -4.1 4 France 17,336 16,910 6.5 -2.5 5 China 13,165 13,674 5.3 3.9 6 Australia 11,042 11,140 4.3 0.9 7 Germany 8,253 8,330 3.2 0.9 8 Mexico 9,928 7,320 2.8 -26.3 9 Ireland 6,881 6,858 2.6 -0.3 10 Costa Rica 6,096 6,363 2.4 4.4 11 Japan 5,710 5,784 2.2 1.3 12 Argentina 4,109 4,705 1.8 14.5 13 South Africa 3,700 4,160 1.6 12.4 14 Czech Republic 3,417 3,664 1.4 7.2 15 Greece 3,847 3,616 1.4 -6.0 16 Chile 2,739 3,503 1.3 27.9 17 Ecuador 2,814 2,859 1.1 1.6 18 Austria 3,356 2,836 1.1 -15.5 19 Brazil 2,723 2,777 1.1 2.0 20 New Zealand 2,629 2,769 1.1 5.3 21 India 3,146 2,690 1.0 -14.5 22 Netherlands 2,038 2,318 0.9 13.7 23 Denmark 1,855 2,244 0.9 21.0 24 Peru 1,638 2,163 0.8 32.1 25 South Korea 1,597 2,062 0.8 29.1 Researched benefits: It has been shown that through study abroad, students can gain a better understanding of themselves, and of their culture. They improve their ability to determine the good and the bad in their own culture in an unbiased manner. In addition, multicultural interactions become smoother and more natural for the students for the rest of their lives.It has been shown that 96% have increased self-confidence, 97% feel more mature and 98% understand their own values more clearly. Types of programs: Despite the slight decline in U.S. students studying abroad for credit in 2008–2009, study abroad is likely to continue to grow. The number of outgoing U.S. students pursuing overseas study has increased over fivefold since the late 1980s, from less than 50,000 students to more than 260,000 in 2008–09. Behind the numbers, though, has been the proliferation in the type study abroad programs. According to Lilli Engel of the American University Center of Provence, there are fundamental differences in the academic and cultural experience offered by study abroad programs today that suggest the need to create a level-based classification system for program types. In an influential Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad article, she compares "a one-month summer term, requiring little or no host language proficiency, with subject-matter classes in English, collective housing and American roommates" with "a full-year program for students of advanced linguistic proficiency housed individually in a host family and directly enrolled in local university courses or engaged in a professional internship or service-learning project." Yet, within international education, a universally accepted method of classifying study abroad programs has proven elusive. U.S. students can choose from a wide range of study-abroad opportunities differentiated by program sponsor, curriculum, cost, program model, language and degree of integration, to name a few. While study abroad in the U.S. is by no means uniform, study abroad programs can reasonably be grouped according to (a) duration, (b) program model (c) program sponsor. Term Abroad 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Summer Term 33.7 34.4 32.7 37.0 37.2 37.2 38.7 38.1 35.8 One Semester 38.5 39.0 40.3 38.1 37.5 36.9 36.3 35.5 37.3 8 Weeks or Less During Academic year 7.4 7.3 9.4 8.9 8.0 9.5 9.8 11.0 11.7 January Term 7.0 6.0 5.6 5.7 6.0 5.4 6.8 7.2 7.0 Academic Year 7.3 7.8 6.7 6.0 6.0 5.3 4.3 4.1 4.1 One Quarter 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 Two Quarters 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 Total 154,168 160,920 174,629 191,321 205,983 223,534 241,791 262,416 260,327 Four basic program models: Four basic models have been identified to refer to a study abroad program's structure. They consist of (a) Island, (b) Integrated, (c) Hybrid, and (d) Field-study programs. Funding study abroad: Costs for a study abroad program include, but are not limited to tuition and fees, room and board, medical insurance, passport and visa fees and transportation costs. While U.S. universities vary in terms of policies related to financing study abroad, financial aid for U.S. students who wish to study abroad may include a combination of scholarships, grants from the home university, government student loans, and private student loans. Student loans in the U.S. Regulatory framework Higher Education Act of 1965 U.S. Dept. of Education FAFSA · Cost of attendance Distribution channels Federal Direct Student Loan Program Federal Family Education Loan Program Loan products Perkins · Stafford PLUS · Consolidation Loans Private student loan I am showing this detail because you can see how many students are studying in other countries so it's mean are they all mad? The world are facing many problems in study but they are doing. Abroad because it's very good for us. |
12 | b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00223-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation) If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified. |
50 | b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00001-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | The US ought to provide an universal basic income. For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says "And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled "Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket." And in this article they explain what negative income tax is "The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate"which is to say, the IRS would pay them." Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty." The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. "Automation Is Killing These Jobs." Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. "1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future." CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. "The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income." FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. "Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. "Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny." Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. ""Universal Basic Income" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket." Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/. |
7 | d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. "Nineteen states "may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. "In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is "legal ground for divorce." "In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. "In six states a felon can never hold public employment. "Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. "In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. "Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. "Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. "All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. "People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. "Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. "The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an "approved" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com... |
10 | 6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Not getting children vaccinated I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex. |
33 | d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00000-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | THW become Vegetarians Thanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You'll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You'll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You'll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. "People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age." 4.You'll build strong bones. When there isn''t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You'll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You'll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won''t open properly and that your muscles won''t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You'll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You'll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. "If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You'll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can''t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You'll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans'' food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a "greener" car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!! |
23 | bbce1e09-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | The legalization and morality of euthanasia Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of "Suicide is just plain wrong!", or to the famous "Killing people is wrong!" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain. |
27 | 9c362ee4-2019-04-18T16:02:18Z-00007-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control I will be taking the position against gun control at any level except for maybe background checks. I wish you good luck. |
3 | 8c21b893-2019-04-18T19:01:34Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Humans should be allowed to have pets. The Con will be challenging the definitions. Also, for clarity, Pro, please advise whether the resolution is Humans should be allowed or able to have pets. Thanks and good debating! |
24 | 4cf458a-2019-04-18T11:38:46Z-00000-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100% I have to agree that 100% tax rate is better than both of the two evils. I believe the government and all levels of wealth wouldn't function properly if an income tax rate was closer to 0%. As said in my first part, redistribution of wealth is still heavily reliant on income tax. As opposed to a 100% tax rate, I believe all money throughout all levels of wealth would lead to a limited wealthy class and the majority to be stuck in poverty with a 0% tax rate. When it comes to a 100% tax rate, there is still an equal opportunity. Even though giving all income to the government, at least all levels of wealth would have their share. I understand that each worker in society has a different contribution of effort and perseverance but a funded environment would outweigh it all. It's better than having different levels outweigh. Even though different amounts of effort may vary in the workplace, government workers wouldn't be in debt. In this case, their workplace wouldn't be funded. An example of a situation that would work better with a 100% tax rate: If parts of the world were to go in a "war economy", it is understood that it is better for an accurate contribution. During times of war and economic drops were the closest tax was to a 100%. Examples like the Civil War was funded by income tax. When the thought of income tax came to be, it showed how difficult and heavy financial burdens would be. I understand that the people wouldn't have control over what they want specifically to pursue happiness but what is needed would most likely outweigh want. I value the quality over the freedom of choice. Room for opportunity wouldn't be relied upon by people who want different things. The government would know what's best. As I said, anything would be filled in. An extra contribution wouldn't. Their pursuit of happiness happens to vary on both sides of the argument. I apologize for the inconvenience regarding my previous debate. Thank you |
38 | 2eca3c01-2019-04-18T12:07:43Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | god knowingly hates children Lamentations 4: 9-11 "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. 10 The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. 11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof."Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."Judges 21:10 "And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children."2 Samuel 12:11-14 "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men."Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."---- a different translation ----Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."Ezekiel 9:5-7 "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$."Hosea 9:11-16 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died."Exodus 21:14 -17 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."Psalms 137:8-9 "Prayer/song of vengeance "0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."2 Kings 6:28-29 "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. 29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."Judges 19:24-29 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. 27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an a$$, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. 29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel." To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." repeat Oh I get it, so you as christians think its cool and rather polite for your grandson to be murdered for something that YOU did. Well if that's the law of the land, then there would be nobody left alive. After all, anybody could make up anything they wanted to about anybody no matter how stupid that didn't even apply to them. And who's to say if it would be correct? There wouldn't be any witnesses to protect the innocent after all.God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action? 2 Kings 2:23-24 "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone "bald head" is far from being worthy of death. Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." Jeremiah 11:22-23 "Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will punish them: the young men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall die by famine: 23 And there shall be no remnant of them: for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth, even the year of their visitation. Jeremiah 19: 7-9 "And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. 9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. |
5 | 36edcc1c-2019-04-18T19:45:50Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security ok my point to why I think it is wrong is in my first paragraph. I have little to say but i don't think I need to say anymore. |
5 | 8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security Due to the fact my opponent's account has been closed, this debate is null. I please ask you not to vote. |
14 | d2157663-2019-04-18T14:25:23Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIIIIIIIIM JONG UN IS MY BEEEEEEST FRIEND.In other words, this is a troll debate. Please DO NOT vote on this debate. |
13 | ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00001-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coa... Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to provide energy. This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect': they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that '... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.' |
49 | 40547f9a-2019-04-18T18:50:40Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys. First I was hoping that my opponent could, in the next round, list all these counties and jurisdictions where mandatory Pro Bono work is currently in place as I'm afraid my list may be incomplete. Thank you. My opponent is correct in her definition of the word "indigent". I was not claiming to define the word, merely to point out that lower to middle class people can often not afford expensive legal representation even if they are not considered impoverished or very needy. It is not only the indigent that would benefit from mandatory Pro Bono work, but also members of the community like myself, who are not indigent, but living paycheck to paycheck. Also medical interns ARE Doctors. They graduated from medical school, with a Doctorate of Medicine. They perform medicine on real patients, not guinea pigs. Their requirement to do an internship and residency is part of their job, just as proposed minimums of service for lawyers would be part of their jobs. Pro Bono IS a Good Thing- I do not think it is appropriate for my opponent to avoid this issue. The topic of the debate is simply Pro Bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys, and should encompass all aspects of the issue. I also believe my opponent is shifting ground, because in her original challenge she stated that mandatory Pro Bono work "Does impose a duty on attorneys to be responsible for the legal needs of the community as a whole" and it is this community that I am arguing should be served. The rapidly growing need for access to legal services in America is the very reason the proposition for mandatory Pro Bono services are constantly being considered and revised. Pro Bono work is Constitutional My opponent cites the first amendment as grounds for Pro Bono work being unconstitutional. The first Amendment ensures that the Government will not interfere with a citizens five basic freedoms. It does not however; specify rules of entry into certain organizations or professions. The privilege to practice law would be contingent upon certain conditions being met, such as 20-40 hours of service minimum. If the condition did occur that a particularly morally bankrupt lawyer had a deep seeded set of beliefs that free services to the poor are bad, he would be free to choose another carer, this isn't conscription or indentured servitude. We cannot argue moral convictions against the requirements of our CHOSEN job. The ABA would not be prejudiced against that lawyer, they would be requiring him to do his JOB. If that same lawyer had a deep seeded prejudice against clients of color, he would not be afforded that exception to represent only whom he pleased. Mandatory Pro Bono undermines the spirit of charity work/ Lawyers would not perform as well with these clients- My opponent states that this is not a moral debate, but says the issue of the nobility of voluntary service is in question, and that is a moral issue. All lawyers abide by the Model rules for professional conduct which includes seeing a case through to the end, and giving the client a competent defense. To suggest that lawyers are ego-centric and would sandbag on the Pro Bono cases is an attack on their character, not the argument. Many lawyers do give back already and would not be affected by mandatory hours. In an article "Tending the Generous Heart: Mandatory Pro Bono and Moral Development" from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, the author states that, "The opportunity to serve the poor might also increase a lawyers empathy and give them a wider perspective. improve the sensitivity and moral quality of professional relationships overall, since significant cultural and situational differences are common in legal work" |
40 | 40ee2d2f-2019-04-18T14:12:51Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty should be eliminated I believe that death row should be eliminated for the following reasons 1. For an execution to take place, its costs the tax payers. It is significantly more expensive to execute someone than to put them in jail for like without possibility for parole. 2. There is no proof that capital punishment reduces crime. States without the death penalty typically have lower murder rates. The south has the highest murder rate with 80% of the U.S executions. 3. Bad lawyers also play a role in this. A lawyer is obviously the one that shows or proves that you were innocent. If an innocent person has a bad lawyer simply because that cant afford a top of the line, this could lead to wrongful conviction, simply because of a lawyer. |
3 | 2403510b-2019-04-18T15:27:22Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | School Uniforms Should school uniforms be allowed? |
45 | 3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | We should get rid of the penny Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. "These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America." said Weller. "Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned." The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. "Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want," said Weller. "It's just common cents." Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...; |
39 | 5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "one would expect America"to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour." 2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.) 3States With Minimum Wages Higher Than the FederalTwenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation"s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project. 4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are "near-minimum-wage" workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS"s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of "near-minimum" U.S. workers " those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education. 5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysis also found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as "tip credits" bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.) |
3 | c203062e-2019-04-18T16:35:43Z-00000-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government I have presented facts to prove 9/11 was an inside job. The U.S government was warned 40 times of Osama Bin Laden flying planes into buildings in New York. There was insider trading done on the two airline companies whose planes were part of these attacks. Also, months before 9/11 shoot down orders were put in the hands of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. It used to be in the hands of the colonels of the Air Force bases. Then on 9/11 these colonels couldn't shoot down these planes. In fact an aid warned Cheney of the plane that was going to hit the Pentagon when it was 50 miles out and then again when it was 30 miles out. Cheney then told the aid the stand down order was still on. We still have to see clear evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon too. You accuse me of disrespecting victims too. Many of the victims families believe the government did 9/11 too. We have never indicted Bin Laden either because we have no hard evidence to prove of him doing this. The first source below also has many experts who think it was an inside job. Witnesses won't say it was an inside job because if they did the government would harshly punish them. Sources: http://www.zerohedge.com... http://www2.gwu.edu... http://www.9-11commission.gov... https://m.youtube.com... |
7 | 9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. When looking at the basis of the resolution, we read in the first prepositional phrase "in a democratic society," therefore the resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected and equality of all is the implied value. To define key terms: Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Democracy (root of democratic) - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy, Of or for the people in general; popular, Believing in or practicing social equality The value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the equality by the ways of democracy, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Moreso, a democracy is defined as in having or practicing social equality and inversely, without equality, a full democracy cannot be established. CONTENTION ONE: ENFRANCHISING FELONS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INCREASE OF DEMOCRACY A. FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT HURTS DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND RIGHTS Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 Regarding individuals who complete their sentence, it is difficult to develop a compelling argument for the denial of voting rights. Americans long have professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. But a felony conviction may continues to deny these rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. (Regrettably, policymakers in recent years enacted a series of collateral consequences of conviction, many tied specifically to drug offenses, that also extend after sentence. These include bans on receiving welfare assistance, living in public housing, and obtaining financial aid for higher education.) But serious questions can be raised as well regarding the loss of fundamental rights for people currently serving a felony sentence, whether in prison or on probation or parole. Our legal system generally makes a distinction between punishment-the loss of liberty whether in prison or on probation-and the loss of rights. The only exceptions generally conceded by law and policy are those exercises of speech that might conflict with public safety concerns. If we think of voting more broadly, as a fundamental expression of speech, then disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society. Suppose, for example, a legislator proposed a bill to make it unlawful for a probationer to write a letter to the editor or to participate in a protest rally. Surely few policymakers or citizens would find this an appropriate consequence of a conviction. Yet in the twenty-nine states that currently prohibit probationers from voting, such restrictions on political expression are firmly in place. The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful. The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class. Affirming the resolution allows for reenfranchisement, which changes how felons function in the electoral system. B. RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ENABLES REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION INTO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 In a more positive vein, the restoration of voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. If an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial, then it is in society's interest to engage offenders in productive relationships with the community. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Such a rationale is employed by the many nations (and the states of Maine and Vermont) that do not relate voting rights to criminal punishment and permit even prisoners to vote. By the standards of most democratic nations, American disenfranchisement policies are extreme, as is our excessive use of imprisonment. No other democratic nation disenfranchises former offenders for life; some countries deny voting rights to citizens after they have completed a prison sentence, but this generally is for a limited period of time and for specific offenses. During the past decade, constitutional courts in Canada, Israel, and South Africa have affirmed the fundamental right of all citizens, including prisoners, to be part of the electorate. The Israeli case is particularly intriguing because it resulted from a challenge to the voting rights of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of killing former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy impacts to providing the most social justice through the protection of rights, both on a domestic and international scale. CONTENTION 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights. Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," Criminal Justice Ethics, 2005 Technically, disenfranchisement is not considered part of an offender's sentence but only a "collateral consequence" of conviction. Consequently, one rarely sees judges defending disenfranchisement as punishment. With regard to imprisoned felons, the argument implied in this rhetorical question has some force. Because the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised It would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy by means of marketable ideas being expressed. |
14 | 1beb6206-2019-04-18T17:51:24Z-00007-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality Is A Mental Disorder I will now defend my claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder. According to Wikipedia, a mental disorder is "a psychological pattern or anomaly, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture. " When broken down into four separate criteria, it is more easily seen how homosexuality fits this description of mental disorder. These criteria are:1. Psychological pattern or anomaly2. Potentially reflected in behavior3. Generally associated with distress or disability4. Not considered part of normal development of a person's culture. Homosexuality fits criterion 1 because it is a psychological anomaly. A psychological anomaly is a psychological trait that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Homosexuality is behavior that deviates from the standard. As the majority of people are heterosexual, and heterosexual activity is the only sexual activity required for the survival of our species, heterosexuality is the standard. So homosexuality fits criterion 1. Homosexuality fits criterion 2 because it is potentially reflected in behavior. Given that homosexuality can be, and is, reflected through homosexual behavior, such as anal intercourse between two males, this point is not arguable. Homosexuality fits criterion 3 because it is generally associated with distress. Homosexuals are seven times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals. (1) According to the academic, peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality, "a score of mental health conditions in almost every DSM category are present in the general [homosexual] population at rates three or more times greater than in the heterosexual population. These conditions include bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, but more predominantly consist of mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality. " (2) It can be argued that distress among the homosexual population is largely due to social stigma; however, this doesn't change the fact that homosexuality meets criteria 3 by being generally associated with distress. Homosexuality meets criterion 4 because it is not considered part of normal development in American culture. The laws that have been put in place by society reveals what is considered normal, and only nine out of fifty states have legalized homosexual-marriage. If the majority of society truly considered homosexuality normal, a majority vote would have changed these laws. In summary, homosexuality meets Wikipedia's criteria for what constitutes a mental disorder. I will now demonstrate how homosexuality fits another definition of mental disorder. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a mental disorder is "any illness with significant psychological or behavioral manifestations that is associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning. " When broken down into 3 separate criteria, it can be easily demonstrated how homosexuality meets the encyclopedia's definition of a mental disorder. These criteria are:1. Illness2. Significant psychological or behavioral manifestations3. Associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioningHomosexuality meets criterion 1 because it is an illness. 'Illness,' according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "an unhealthy condition of body or mind. " Homosexuality is an unhealthy condition of the mind. At worst, it's a "lethal behavioral addiction", according to Kathleen Melonakos, M. A. , R. N. (3) At best, it's a predisposition towards unhealthy behavior, like exceptionally dangerous sexual practices. Homosexual and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States, says the U. S. government; (4) 44 times more likely to be infected than straight men, in fact. The risk for syphilis is even greater. (5) According to the Scientific Advisory Committee of N. A. R. T. H. , "[h]omosexuality is not without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health. " (6) Homosexuality in men is associated with increased psychiatric morbidity, particularly in terms of depression, anxiety disorders, and suicidal behavior. (7)Homosexuality meets criterion 2 because it has significant behavioral manifestations. This fact is undisputable; anal intercourse between men is a well-known example. Homosexuality meets criterion 3 because it associated with an impairment in important areas of functioning. One important area of impairment is the ability to survive; homosexuality carries with it a seven-fold increase in the probability that one commits suicide. According to the author of the medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses, homosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction. (3) Men and women in same-sex marriages have a shorter life-span than the general population. (10) The International Journal of Epidemiology says that life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is about sixteen years less than for all men. (9) Furthermore, the risk of life-threatening disease in the homosexual community is greater than the medical risk of any activity for any comparable group. (8) Another important area where homosexuality is associated with impairment is sexual functioning. By its very nature, homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension, the survival of the human species. Also, according to a study performed by the Kinsey Institute, gay men are more likely to suffer erectile dysfunction than heterosexual men. (11)Yet another impaired area of functioning is parenting. The difficulties confronted by lesbian mothers or gay fathers is similar to those faced by singleparents and divorced households. On top of this is the additional burden of wrestling with the social stigma associated with homosexuality. (14) Also, given that homosexuality is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans, (12) it logically follows that homosexuality is associated with an impairment of parenting ability. Furthermore, recreational drug use is more common in gay and lesbian people than in the heterosexual population, and lesbians are at greater risk of alcohol problems than heterosexual women. (13) I await my opponent's rebuttal. (1) Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH, Simone French, PhD, Mary Story, PhD, Michael D. Resnick, PhD, and Robert Blum, MD, PhD. The Relationship between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study. 1998. (2) Whitehead, Neil. Homosexualities and Co-Morbidities: Therapeutic Research and Implications. Journal of Human Sexuality 2:124-175, 2010. (3) . http://www.wf-f.org...(4) . http://www.cdc.gov...(5) Tanzola, Melinda. HIV, Syphilis Risk Quantified in Gay, Bisexual Men. Clinical Psychiatry News (Volume 38, Issue 9). (6) Journal of Human Sexuality 1, 2009. (7) Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 3, June 2003, pp. 231–242. (8) Journal of Human Sexuality 1:48, 2009. (9) International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26 No. 3. 1997. (10) American Journal of Public Health. January 2009, 99(1):133-7. (11) Bancroft, John. Human Sexuality and its Problems. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2009. (p. 328)(12) Ostrow, MD, PhD, et al. Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Individuals Reporting Same-Sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6. (13) Michael King, MD, et al. Mental health and quality of life of gay men and lesbians in England and Wales. The British Journal of Psychiatry (2003) 183: 552-558 |
16 | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00011-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher "self-diagnosing". [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission's Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011 |
40 | a490d7df-2019-04-18T18:23:10Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty I will be for the Death Penalty. Still kinda new to debating, but looking for a good argument! Good luck! |
28 | bbe2f561-2019-04-18T19:26:06Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should Be Legalized The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us! |
22 | f4a38d1-2019-04-15T20:24:42Z-00009-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | A peaceful solution Agreeing a lease would provide a much needed peaceful solution to the Crimean crisis which would not only solve the immediate crisis but would also prevent future flare ups. Shortly after Russian forces moved into Crimea Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk of Ukraine said "This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country".[1] It has not so far been a shooting war, and no one wants it to escalate. Russia's UN Ambassador has said "Russia does not want war… We don't want any further exacerbation of the situation."[2] But when there are constant tensions the best way to prevent a potentially unpredictable situation is to provide a solution to the situation. A lease should be considered. [1] Zinets, Natalia, and De Carboonnel, Alissa, 'Ukraine mobilises after Putin's 'declaration of war'', Reuters, 2 March 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140302 [2] 'Ukraine crisis: Russia tells UN it does not want war', BBC News, 14 March 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26564851 |
15 | 901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00007-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing for Cosmetics Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2 |
22 | 71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict My opponent argues that a communist government would unite Palestinians and Israelis because it would "combine their ethnicities". Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. It wouldn't "combine their ethnicities" it would just make tensions worse. My opponent argues that since communism distributes land equally, there would be no more territorial disputes. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state--a fully realized and truly independent state--in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital (1). This means firstly that forcing the two countries together would be against the wishes of there people, and secondly that equal land distribution would not please either group. My opponent also argues that "Any class systems would vanish because everyone would become equal. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power." Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. My opponent argues that "unlike a parallel state solution this would solve the problem of unity by having the one communist party be made up of Palestinians and Israelis alike." Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? What does China have to do with this debate? This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. That entire paragraph is totally off topic, and on top of that inaccurate. Go look up the name Deng Xiaoping and then come back and tell me how "communist" China is. Communism would not solve any of the key issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country and Palestine's entire goal is independence. Communism is not a logical answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it would not effectively solve any of the key issues, is not practically realistic, and would never be supported by the people. (1) http://www.endtheoccupation.org... |
35 | b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00003-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Thank you Wylted for your arguments. I'll go ahead and attack each of my opponent's claims.Trained to KillHere, my opponent basically explains the arguments that he will run during the debate. He brings up two points:1. Kids are desensitized by playing video games.2. This desensitization contributes to violence.By the end of this debate, I aim to prove both of these things untrue. Not Born to KillFor this point, my opponent explains that humans do not like killing. He gives an example of the kill rates before and after the beginning of training soldiers with killing simulations he claims that are similar to some of the video games played today. Here is why this argument doesn't hold up. Firstly, we have to realize that these killing simulations are not as similar to the popular video games children play as my opponent makes them out to be. Shooting targets while listening to "kill kill kill" over and over in one's head is more likely to result in acts of violence than popular video games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Gilsdorf explains, "They offer a hunt/shoot/kill scenario as a way to solve problems (1)." So we see that today's violent video games provide a scenario that involves thinking and problem solving rather than just repetitive killing. Another thing to look at is the various factors involved in this killing simulation besides violence. Ultimately, a system that rewards points will lead to some degree of competition. This is part of what may have caused the added motivation from the soldiers to kill. It may seem a bit extreme to suggest that competition leads to violence (or in the case of the military, murder). Psychology Today explains, "Competition among men leads to a high level of violence (murder, assault, and battery) among them (2)." Essentially, men are motivated to be more violent due to various sources of competition (such as women or sports). Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor.Desensitize MeMy opponent begins by explaining that video games desensitize individuals. However, from a psychological standpoint, this is not necessarily the case. A study was conducted by Reyerson University. Two large groups (active gamers and non-gamers) were shown various images with good, bad, and neutral connotations. Many of these images could be considered violent. It was hypothesized that the gamers would be less sensitive to the bad pictures, especially the violent ones. However, it turned out that both groups had similar reactions. Bowen notes at the end of the experiment, "The findings indicate that long-term emotional memory is not affected by chronic exposure violent video games (3)." My opponent's next point brings up various figures of authority who support the idea that video games significantly contribute to real world violence. This is a common logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. Just because someone important believes something, doesn't mean that the belief is correct. This point ultimately falls because no evidence is provided as to *why* these people support con's stance.Looking at my opponent's last point, we can see a study is cited that is rather similar to mine above. There are a couple problems with this study:1. The sample size is very small. 30 people (probably 15 gamers and 15 non gamers) is not enough to measure whether or not video games desensitize (or cause violence).2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games.Dr. BruceMy opponent addresses some claims made by Dr. Bruce Perry; I'll go ahead and cover each the claims that are relevant to this debate.1. Desensitization causes violence (desensitization comes from video games). I'll begin by cross applying my point that explains how video games do not result in desensitization. What I'm going to focus on is the claim that desensitization causes violence. Let's take a look at exactly what desensitization is. It can be defined as, "the potential for reduced responsiveness to actual violence caused by exposure to violence in the media." So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence.2. Video games help kids become efficient killers.Now, I would agree to an extent that video games are a way of teaching kids how to handle various combat situations. However, this does not mean that such a game will give kids the desire to use an actual gun. I'd like to bring up my point about releasing aggression from my constructive: "Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids." If children are interested it weapons and violence, it is much better to allow them to play video games than to let them store up such aggressive feelings up to the point where they can gain access to a real weapon. My first source continues, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they've got (1)."My opponent ends this point by explaining that video games are effective in teaching by showing an example of a man who saved lives using a technique he learned in a video game. The problem with this point is that it actually has nothing to do with video games teaching violent practices. The given video game in this example has promoted something useful, as opposed to violence. Fact or FictionThis last point does nothing to further my opponent's case. My opponent explains that a large amount of people cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy saying that, "These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed (by video games)." I have proved through my rebuttal that video games don't actually give this extra push; rather, they can discourage it in some cases (through aggression release).To sum everything up...The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence.For these reasons, I am pro.(1) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org... (2) http://www.psychologytoday.com... (3) http://www.newswise.com...(4) Freedman, J.L. (2003). Media Violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. |
23 | 84a6fafa-2019-04-18T14:47:38Z-00005-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia." However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South [7] and [8] Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " "it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong." [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presentedi n the comments section. |
47 | ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Not Be Required Keep in mind I cannot respond to any of Con's dropped contentions.Point 1My opponent seemingly defeats his own argument. In the last round he said exactly this: "Here is a remind of my counter plan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short).This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is)."And yet when explaining why my sources are allegedly irrelevant, he says:"She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs. now is different in quantity... All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it's harder." In the first statement he says that he is arguing QUANTITY is what matters in assessing homework. And then in the second statement he says DIFFICULTY is what's relevant and quantity isn't relevant at all. I'm sure I am not the only one confused by Con's statements, and once again, I will not have the opportunity to respond.To repeat my position, students have had roughly the same amount of HW quantity over the last 30 years. Con does not deny this - nor has Con proven that a DIFFERENCE in education standards over the last 30 years means a difference one way or the other (easier or harder) let alone a difference in the quality of HW assignments. Moreover, I argued that Con had not proven that his studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pro-HW studies he cites (noting that quantity of homework is most important -- which I've argued against) are any more valid. He dropped this contention and has not proven that his studies represent a larger sample size.I pointed out that my study examined data of more than 18,000 students to uncover explanations for academic performance. Con suggests we have to use the entire world population of children as a measure which is absurd. Out of 1.9 billion children, 1 billion of them live in destitute poverty [1]. These children, especially in the third world, can't even eat or drink and millions die from starvation daily -- yet Con suggests we should factor them into the population of students who benefit from homework, when they have never seen a school in their life. That is an abusive standard no judge would take seriously. Quite obviously we are discussing homework in the West (especially the U.S.) where public education and the subsequent standards is the norm. Thus 18K is a good sample size for research. Con has not even tried to present us with an estimate of the number of students his cited studies cover, let alone present research that accounts for a larger size. Some studies in his favor have "hundreds" yet I invite Con to prove his studies are more relevant in size, date and scope [2, 3]. One study in his favor had a sample size of around 1,300 students -- or about 1/18th of the population my sources covered. In short, Con has dug himself a hole in trying to attack the credibility of my sources and studies; he has not proven his are any more valid. In the last round I decided to move on from this and noted it would appear SOME cases show that homework could be beneficial (accounting for a lot of different variables). Of course, that is completely irrelevant to the rest of my argument. I've pointed out that not everything that is beneficial ought to be required as well as suggested the potential negatives of HW outweigh the potential positives. Indeed that is the crux of my position in this debate. 1A. I pointed out that even if HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will be beneficial. He responded with accusations of straw mans when in fact he fails to see the absurdity of this objection. If Con is not saying that only BENEFICIAL homework be required, then he is advocating that even NON-beneficial homework be required. Why would Con advocate non-beneficial homework?! That would be punishment with no substance or positive effect. Therefore it is only logical to assume Con is only advocating BENEFICIAL homework. If he would like to challenge this, I guess he can...1B. It would appear Con does want to challenge this lol. He writes, "Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counter plan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory." So here we can see that Con even supports HW that is not beneficial, meaning he has no good reason (positive benefits) to support HW at all. And furthermore, Con skirts 1B as if it is a meaningless statement when in fact it is the entire basis of my argument. Please extend all of my 1B points -- I pointed out why not all things that are beneficial should be required. Ergo, even if homework were beneficial, it need not be mandatory. Con thinks HW (despite being so problematic) should just be imposed whether it has benefits or not, which is an even more ridiculous position than I think anyone expected him to take. Point 2Con accuses me of not refuting the counter plan which is false. His counter plan is simply "less homework" which I have argued, especially in Point 2. "Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework..." which proves I did address his counter plan of less HW time. My opponent says that it's okay for students to spend different amounts of time on HW, which fails to address my point on an undue burden for slow learners or those who take longer to do assignments. This means additional stress and imposition for those students on recreational and rest time, which Con glosses over as being addressed by special classes/assignments but this cannot be proven or enforced. Even students in special classes learn at a different pace from each other. Con asked for sources proving that parents do their kid's homework. I presented the studies; Con dropped this point and said "Well kids should be doing it themselves." Sure, but extend my argument that they are often NOT doing it themselves based on my statistics. Con must concede this point; instead he suggests this simply doesn't matter. Obviously when parents do their kid's assignments, it places burden on the parents and provides no utility to the child while still creating work for teachers. Once again - whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to HW monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments.In response, Con says "since there will be a lower homework quantity, this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework" which clearly doesn't address my points at all regarding lack of resources, not just time. Con also says that the states account for financial factors in HW assignments and cited this source from the UK -- yet not a single line from that source said anything about poverty affecting assigned work or HW. I invite my opponent to copy and paste the line from that source which proves his point here [4]. I have no reason to accept it thus far. And besides, people within the same school can still come from vastly different financial backgrounds. Con states, "If [students] do not understand [HW] and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher's duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them." However teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework - a factor cited in Con's previous source from the CPE [5]. Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. Con also dropped that his citations don't account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information.Point 3Con says "She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything." That is not fallacious but a logical fact. If you spend time on X (homework) you cannot spend time on Y (anything else) that requires significant attention. That's called the law of non-contradiction. Just because school provides some activities doesn't mean it provides the same activities or amount of time/attention on those activities as parents or kids would like. Con notes that school, work, etc. cut into people's time and yet I am not advocating those be abolished. I explained how homework provides a "second shift" of work that kids should not have to face. Please extend my arguments on parents not being subjected to this burden and having options here; Con dropped it and I will not be able to respond.Point 4Con says that HW "counts for nothing" yet HW is often graded. Con says I have provided "no evidence" of cheating. See explanations regarding points 12-15 in the last round. He only contested 1 of those sources. One is a forum - the rest are academic - and he ignores that parents doing HW is cheating which he admits happens. He dropped every one of my arguments on copying and using the internet to cheat as well. Con also dropped the negative effects of HW's "drill and kill" methodolgy and its impact on learning. PLEASE EXTEND MY LAST ROUND'S CONCLUSION.Thanks!SOURCES: http://www.debate.org... |
7 | 9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00000-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Prisoners right to vote International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights supports prisoner voting |
8 | 72a540d2-2019-04-18T20:00:34Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legalized. Abortion should be legal, definitely. Ask a pro-lifer what their position represents - what is being a pro-lifer? They'll usually give you a definition of something along the lines of someone who believes that a fetus is a life, and the sanctity of life should not be compromised by legalizing a form of murder. Ask them further if they would take measures against death occurring. Would they, if they had the power, pass a legislation that would save more lives than not? If adhering to their position as pro-lifers, they should. At this point, the terms pro-lifer and pro-choicer would become synonymous, because any pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite, and wants to save lives as opposed to inflicting punishment will want to legalize abortion. A study came out recently showing that rates of abortion occur in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com... ) Despite the ruling of the land, women are not deterred in ending their pregnancy when they want to. More often than not in areas where it is not legal, unsafe abortions occur and the mother is injured or killed. In places where abortion is legal, unsafe abortion is hardly a problem, and abortions usually occur legally and safely. So the citizen has their choice: legalize a process that kills one person (accepting the definition that the fetus is a life - which I would contest, but I'm using it here for the sake of argument), or ban a process, thereby killing two people for every one that could have gone. If the "pro-lifer" sticks to their moral compass that they defined earlier, they'll find that legal abortion is a necessary privilege, and banning abortion is contradictory to their philosophy, killing more people than could have been saved. |
30 | be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00001-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Right to carry arms In this second Con speech, I will examine the arguments in Pro"s second speech, demonstrating why they are not as powerful as my opponent believes. I must note my opponent never defended his own arguments. This significant drop should be considered by the voters. All of the arguments put forth against his second contention, namely that of correlation v. causation, still apply. Now, let us examine his rebuttals to Side Con"s contentions in full. C1: Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. My opponent first clashes with my critique of NRA reports of self-defense using firearms. He correctly claims this point has nothing to do with Side Pro's argument. The purpose of said paragraph was giving context to the political environment, not to add a false source to side Pro - mere stylistic flair. That being said, Side Pro then produces evidence from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Apparently, there were no murder convictions for Texas permit holders in 1999. My opponent has selectively chosen this number. In that same year (1), CHL holders were found guilty of 4 charges of aggressive assault with a deadly weapon, 1 case of sexual assault, 53 cases of assault causing bodily injury, 15 cases of deadly conduct, 5 terrorism threats, and 34 cases of unlawful carrying of arms. Furthermore, my opponent only looked at statistics from 1999. Considering more recent statistics, namely 2011, there were not only murder convictions, but manslaughter, robbery, child sexual abuse, and multi-murder convictions for CHL holders. There were four murders by CHL holders in 2010 alone. A full swath of CHL holder crimes can be found here (2). My opponent also asserts "Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994." This claim only looks at a time period far prior to a more modern, nuanced view of gun proliferation in Florida. Namely, prior to 2005, Florida"s firearm-involved murder rate never topped 3.5 people per 100,000. Since 2005, the number of murders has been higher. In 2011, 70% of all Florida murders involved handguns. Equally alarming is this fact: though Florida has the most concealed gun permits of any state, it still has the 13th highest firearm-involved murder rate in the state (3). Deterrent? The numbers disagree. Later, in support of his first contention, my opponent brings up a quote by David Burnett: "We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved." At first, this 550 seems 34 lives higher than the 516 killed by CHL holders. Pro seems to win, but the numbers don"t match up. Burnett"s research was not confined solely to concealed carry self-defense instances, but ALL self-defense instances in the 153 documented cases. Thus, comparing this number to the 516 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Under this comparison, Pro"s self-defense number pales to the total number of ALL handgun murders, including concealed carry murders, a whopping 8,275 in 2010 alone. Burnett's figures for purely concealed carry safety measures are undoubtedly smaller. When the 516 concealed carry murders nearly equal the same number of total self-defense instances found in 26 states, we have a problem. Finally, my opponent claims my statistics involving all handgun deaths are invalid and irrelevant. I profoundly disagree. The resolution states we have a "right to carry a concealed handgun" (Pro 1). If that is the case, we must consider the possibility if every person in the US decided to take up that right; otherwise, we would be adopting the resolution without looking through all possibilities, a prospect my opponent fears. Thus, when we look at the total number of handgun murders, we see how the US population tends to use semi-automatic handguns. Sadly for Pro, criminals are the guns" primary users, as outlined in my first speech. Thus, all points brought up against my 1C have been refuted. 2C: Concealed firearms easily find themselves into the hands of convicted felons. First, allow me to elaborate upon this point. Giving a gun to a convicted felon, especially one convicted of violent crime, is tantamount to giving a cocaine addict cocaine upon his becoming sober. It makes no logical sense, giving the criminal the ability to engage in crime yet again. My opponent correctly asserts I wish guns to prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns. However, he counters on two fronts. For one thing, he claims most will find illegal ways to regain guns. While illegal options are certainly viable, this does not make a legal option for them to obtain firearms any less immoral. Such an option still puts weapons in the hands of convicted felons, who, as my first speech demonstrates, do commit violent crimes. Since the legal option does not decrease the number of crimes these felons commit or the number of illegal arms purchased, it only serves as a detriment to the general public. My opponent"s second counter-argument is even more interesting. "If all convicted felons were restricted from obtaining a gun, there would be around 1.8 MILLION people who committed small crimes but were not able to obtain guns legally. That"s almost the state population of Nebraska!!" My response: why not? So what if 1.8 million people cannot legally own a gun? I thought the fewer guns you have, the fewer murders you have! After all, if Australia has shown us anything, limiting the number of guns available to the population has lowered the number of gun murders to mere triple digits (4) as opposed to the US"s quintuple digits (5)! Since my opponent has failed to demonstrate why preventing these felons from having their gun rights is wrong, this entire counterargument remains utterly unconvincing. Preventing 1.8 million convicted felons from acquiring guns is a huge boon to public safety. Thus, with both arguments countered, my 2C stands. 3C: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. My opponent counters this in two ways. First, he claims the deterrent effect of "shall-issue laws" is very much real, due to statistics in Florida gun violence. Sadly, my opponent utterly ignores the argument I previously put forth: correlation does NOT equal causation. Hundreds of factors " economics, politics, racism, education " affect the reduction in violent crime. Furthermore, the drop in violent crime occurred from 2007 to 2011. Since Florida"s "shall-issue laws" came into effect in 1987 (6), why didn"t this drop in crime happen earlier? Secondly, my opponent attacks a world I promoted in my 3C, where people must reveal their firearms on their person. My opponent believes people could be frightened of innocent civilians. This would be true, but this is not as important as the greater deterrent effect. For an instant, voters, put yourselves in the criminal"s shoes. Who would you rather rob? A. An older woman walking down the street who MIGHT have a gun. B. An older woman walking down the street who visibly HAS a gun. My opponent also claims this would also make the US a "terrorist country." This is false; having a firearm exposed does not make you a terrorist or the US a terrorist country. Soldiers and police officers often have highly visible firearms; they are not terrorists. Such a world is far from IDEAL (a world with NO guns), it certainly deters more crime than the world Pro supports. Unless side Pro can adequately respond to all these arguments, along with those not addressed earlier in the round, Side Con must win this debate. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 2. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 3. http://www.naplesnews.com... 4. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 5. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nraila.org... |
28 | 181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal. Rebuttals to Round 4 Arguments: "However underage prostitutes should not affect everyone else who is completely of age and can make their own choices." -I think that your arguments are slightly off point. As I mentioned before, an overwhelming percentage of prostitutes are brought into that lifestyle at a very early age. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The crime is completely determined by motivation! It's basically convicting someone and throwing them in jail for having the wrong motivation to have sex." -I believe you are taking prostitution and criminality in the completely wrong perspective. First, the crime behind prostitution is exploitation. Exploitation is a crime, and it is actually very common with underage girls. Ironically, most prostitutes, as we identified earlier, were exploited at a very early age, and as a result, they have become battered by the lifestyle. Take this following source for example: "Prostitution is consuming thousands of girls and women and reaping enormous profits for organized crime in post-communist countries. In addition, each year, several hundred thousand women are trafficked from Eastern European countries for prostitution in sex industry centers all over the world. The practices are extremely oppressive and incompatible with universal standards of human rights. The sex trade is a form of contemporary slavery and all indications predict its growth and expansion into the 21st century." [1] -If we digest this statement, and use some deductive reasoning we can jump to a couple solid points. First, the regulation of prostitution will just expand on human trafficking. Pimps and greedy businessmen will target young girls and groom them to partake into the sex trade. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I will replace the words 'having sex' with say, eating a burrito. If I eat a burrito because I like the burrito, its fine, but when I do it because I want money, its suddenly illegal?" -You have mentioned a couple times that my reasoning was illogical. Now, I would really like for you to explain how you compare the exploitation of minors into prostitution to eating a "burrito"? I hope you understand that this is a very real issue. You bring up points about eating burritos, and I am bringing up points about; exploitation, physical abuse, drug addiction, and rape. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The problem isn't the act itself, the problem is the industry which surrounds it, so wouldn't it be better to legalize it so we could take steps to eliminate this abusive industry and keep the prostitutes safe?" -Now we are getting somewhere. The real nuts and bolts into why some people feel prostitution should be regulated. I present this source as an argument: "Considering the extreme conditions of exploitation in the sex industry, those distinctions are nothing but abstractions that make for good academic debates. They are, however, meaningless to women under the control of pimps or traffickers. Certainly, the sex industry doesn't differentiate between "free" and "forced," and my research reveals that men who buy women and children in prostitution don't differentiate either. Legalization and regulation aim to redefine prostitution as a form of work, indicated by the use of the term "sex work." The renaming may clean up the image of prostitution, but it doesn't end the violence and exploitation."[1] -What can we conclude from this particular statement. How do you intend to control the pimps and the businessmen that will traffic minors into the industry? How do you intend to regulate or control the drug addiction? We can't even control the heroin epidemic that is on the rise in this country. Do you really believe we can control rape of physical abuse? Can you guarantee me that all prostitution will be conducted in some facility, where security personnel manage a camera system? What do you intent to do when men decide to sneak camera's into the room and film their sexual intercourse, then sell it on the internet? To what ends do you expect to take prostitution, and please don't tell me its for the income the governments will receive through taxation? -Lets look into healthcare for these prostitutes. Do you really think insurance companies will provide very cheap insurance to women who are likely to obtain some form of STD? What about all the males that could catch some of these STD's? Is it possible that STD's will rise in this country? If that's the case, what will happen to our insurance premiums? Will the government now force those who can actually afford healthcare to also pay for the treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases? I am using a little logic here. However we still have one more argument. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Okay, it's fair to say many prostitutes were abused as children. But how about the prostitutes that weren't and chose the profession from their own free will? And even if there was a link between all of them, isn't the damage already done? " -So from what I can conclude from your statement, the damage is already done to minors, why not let them have a career in prostitution. Is that the point you are trying to make? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Then you agreed with me and said that yes, it would be entirely illegal. However, your statement is illogical, since before you said that we do have the right to do the things that meet the criteria, and my example certainly met the criteria. Your contradicting yourself. Look, I think you're a skilled debater, yet you're not being reasonable." -I don't see where I contradicted myself. I told you people could have sex of their own free will. However, men who pay women for sex are guilty of exploitation. They are exploiting a sexual service from someone who was likely brought into prostitution through; phsyical abuse, mental abuse, molestation, drugs, or manipulation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: -Lets break down prostitution in a different way. Why do men pay women for a sexual service? To gratify a sexual desire? To fulfil a sexual fantasy? Is it a taboo for them? Are they cheating on their wives? -Women sell their bodies for money, not because it feels good. Now there may be a very small percentage of women that cope with the lifestyle of prostitution, but that does not make it right. When taking into consideration the amount of minors that are manipulated and driven into prostitution, it is completely rational and fair to conclude exploitation is the crime. "Women's bodies and emotions must belong to them alone. They must not be traded or sold. The sex industry targets and consumes young women, usually under age 25, often girls in their teens. If a state permits prostitution to flourish, a certain portion of each generation of young women will be lost. Prostitution causes extreme harm to the body and the mind. Women who survive the beatings, rapes, sexually transmitted diseases, drugs, alcohol, and emotional abuse, emerge from prostitution ill, traumatized, and often, as poor as when they entered."[1] On to you! [1]http://www.uri.edu... |
28 | 9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Thanks to my opponent for his great arguments. In this round I will rebut his arguments, then defend mine, then add my final argument.Human TraffickingI agree that anything that increases human trafficking is bad. I disagree with my opponent's assertion that legalising prostitution creates more human trafficking. My opponent has two sources, one from a blog that pretty much asserts this based on the opinions of a site called "Bible Knowledge" (with no research to back it up), and the other one is from the opinion pages of a minor newspaper. Both say that studies have been done but do not cite the studies, and despite a good search I cannot find any of them anywhere. His sources would do well to note that prostitution in Amsterdam is not legalised but decriminalised.Why does human trafficking happen? Prostitutes do not smuggle themselves. They get smuggled and traded by gangsters and criminal organisations. Prostitutes have no choice but to join these - they have no legal protections because they are also criminals, and they need protection from the law which the criminals can provide. This dependency is the problem. There is zero empirical evidence from peer-reviewed research that smuggling increases when prostitution is legal (http://eprints.qut.edu.au...), and it's because of the reduced dependency on criminal groups.Prostitution is only a tiny fraction of human trafficking that happens in the world (http://www.jstor.org...). It would be much better to tackle this problem rather than make the wrong assumption that all prostitutes are victims of trafficking (http://femlaw.queensu.ca...) and therefore need to be victimised by the government some more, by throwing them in jail and/or (if they are indeed trafficked) sending them back home with nothing. It's like banning retail in order to stop theft.But even if this were somehow the prostitute's fault, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong. Banning all prostitution because some people smuggle prostitutes is analogous to banning all TV because some people watch too much TV. Rather, it should be illegal to smuggle prostitutes, not to be a prostitute.As one book put it (http://goo.gl...) "trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed."Prostitution will still happenMy opponent's argument basically boils down to this: stealing still happens, so let's make that legal too. I'm not saying this is a reason to make it legal. That's what my safety and role of the state points are for. The reason I make this argument is because all the counter-arguments to prostitution rely on prostitution actually being reduced as a result of criminalisation, which all the evidence indicates it isn't. So while my opponent may make a good argument that legalisation does not follow from this, that isn't my point - my point is that prostitution will still happen. In my own country we have plenty of empirical evidence for this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz...).SafetyIf my opponent wants me to draw a distinction between other crimes and prostitution, I would be able to give several, such as the fact that prostitution does not have a victim and that no party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Having said that, my point is that prostitutes are better off when they are safer. Thieves are rarely raped and murdered. Every year that is the reality for thousands of prostitutes in countries where it is illegal. Our society has a problem with violent crime, and I've provided tons of analysis in the last round that legalising something that is (for no good reason) a "soft crime" can actually prevent a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime. That's good not only for the prostitute, but also for people like me that abhor prostitution.My opponent also argues that to be a profession it must have standards for safe sex and so on. I agree. Prostitution should have standards. The reason it doesn't is that there's no advocacy for prostitutes. As a result if prostitution is illegal, anybody with the ability to have sex can become a prostitute. When it's legal, legal requirements can be put in to ensure that prostitutes have safe sex, just like we ensure doctors are competent.Like my previous opponent, this opponent asks me to give sources citing empirical evidence of everything I say. Something that's logical, as my argument is, is true whether you have empirical proof or not, but in fact I can support everything I said there empirically. I just need my opponent to be more specific about what fact he disagrees with. If he would actually tell me what was wrong with my argument, I'd be happy to prove him wrong.He does mention that I lack a source that opening up to families leads to those families being able to make an intervention if the child is underage, which was my point about families. Actually there is a lot of evidence that legal prostitution can open up a whole range of discourse with young people and their families about it: http://goo.gl...He also does not believe prostitutes are more likely to honor other laws if prostitution is legal. This has been proven many times in academic journals, for instance: http://jiv.sagepub.com...Furthermore, he misreads my point on trafficking, and how it can be REDUCED (not increased) with legal prostitution.Role of the StateIn general, prostitution fits a class of actions that the state has already deemed to be legal. The state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists. Sex is no more illegal than posing nude, so the only principally consistent application of the law is not to ban either of them when money is added back into the equation. If we accept the view that the state is to determine moral rules about what should and should not be done, we must also expect the state to actually have a consistent and coherent moral code. The harm of this is that the general lack of principle in what determines right from wrong reduces clarity in certain borderline situations, thus reducing legal certainty. It's a lot more difficult to respect both the law in general, and any given law, when you aren't really sure what the law is or why it's there. This is definitely the case with prostitution.There are several arguments from specific perspectives on how the state should be behaving, in addition to the above argument from inconsistency in how the state is behaving. Prostitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution. This itself raises another question - since prostitution is so private and there are no spillover effects on others when it is managed and regulated correctly, why should the government even care? Prostitution law would therefore be a major overstepping of the state's role in our society. There are two impacts of this. First, there is a slippery slope towards more arbitrary "moralizing" of our lives, including our private lives. Second, it reduces general trust in the law, which impacts on crime rates. |
1 | 7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00005-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | why should teachers be armed just think of the kids last year that died becase there teacher was not armed and then the year befor that and the year befor that and so on |
16 | 9bf42280-2019-04-18T16:34:01Z-00002-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All Drugs should be Legalized. i'll refute:[Any Source or Evidence of how common it is? It doesn't happen often]Cited in my arguments from that round: . http://www.cdc.gov... "Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs. [. .. ] More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause " That's pretty often. [ Many people that have been addicts for long enough do indeed require larger doses but with this , the risk of overdose decreases aswell because the body is more tolerant to it ]Incorrect. Tolerance decreases with time, and so if you take a short break and come back to the habit you'll find that the chances of you overdosing is higher for the same amount. Overdosing is also caused by injecting in too much of an hurry, the person has been using the drug for a long time and thinks he knows what he is doing along with not knowing the strength of the drug. [1] Overdose can happen at any time, to anyone, without warning. Drugs form a complex chain of chemicals and patterns in your body and eventually that chain will break without warning resulting in death. So how does offering drugs in one place increases accesibility when before you also could get it just in a different place . I, personally, cannot get drugs where I live. They are not sold legally, I do now know anyone that sells them and I haven't randomly been offered them. I have however been offered alcohol and tobacco and can buy it without any difficulties whenever I randomly decide that they tempt me. I have been asked by minors to buy cigarettes for them and when I declined they went to the next person that did buy it for them. [jews Hitler didn't kill jews for their religion]I chose that example precisely for the reason that is was an oversimplification to show your fallacy. Thank you for expanding the thought on my behalf. [Drug addicts do choose to take the drug ]Peer pressure is a powerful thing, it isn't choice, it's stress and longing to fit in. they may be stressed or in a dark place at that time of their lives. They may have been forced into it. It may have been their only way out of the gloomy darkness and they may have been thinking irrationally or not be mature enough to understand the effects. This is an oversimplification, a logical fallacy and isn't a valid argument. [2] [I have listed many reasons why i support Drug Legalization]In this context, irreverent. I was referring to the fact that you seemed completely void of all feelings towards those that I used to make my case while showing sympathy for those that support your case (as you showed when addressing freedom and overdose). You must provide the same treatment and train of logic to everyone involved. [ most experts reckon that drug legalization would lead to prices falling . ]That's great; Now we have cheap, unsafe drugs on the black market. That's just wonderful. Remember that black vendors won't vanish, they'll just act like another store and lower the prices, make the product more appealing and utilizing what isn't legal as a selling point. [It takes more effort to get it legally than illegaly . ]Read my refutation to accessibility. Let's say I couldn't buy alcohol due to age. I'd reckon that I could get my hands on some alcohol by the end of Sunday. I'd call a friend that is over age, I'd buy some from other teens or I'd stand around the liquor store until someone agrees to purchase a six-pack for me. In addition I'd be able to swipe some from my parents that do drink. Let's say I want to get some weed. I've not a clue where to start: I'd maybe contact my friend because I know he has a few friends doing the substance. I'd then have to contact those guys who live an hour drive away from me and see if they can sell me some or tell me who is the dealer and arrange a meeting with him. That might take several days, at least a 3 hour trip to the capital, and I don't have three hours to go anywhere with my life swirling around me. Legal means it's visible and easy to access. Illegal means that people hide it and have to go a few more corners to get things. In what way is it faster to get illegal merchandise? [where the hell did you get that statistic from ? It's certinaly not over 50%]If my opponent had gone over my citations (albeit, incorrectly cited in the argument I'll admit) he would have found the correct one. [. http://www.cdc.gov...] out of those around 1/12 are serious addicts and there is a larger range of people that are in high risk of becoming serious addicts. [i said that i don't know and they could lower , stay the same or rise it depends on many factors and there would be different results in different places ]So it could lower. .. but it could stay the same. .. . but it could increase? That's not an argument for either case, it isn't even an argument, it's accepting that all three results possible might happen. It's virtually the same as accepting that a coin could land on one side but also the other one. Let's look at the original start of this rebuttal: "it is more dangerous and expensive for their parents to get their next fix"If it is more dangerous, and more expensive, and we already discussed that It is harder for someone to get drugs illegally, something my opponent still has not refuted, isn't it more likely that said parent would avoid the drug habit all together? There is a difference going around the corner and buying beer and going to the next alley and buy something that is "dangerous and expensive". [We are already letting adults do a lot of things do you want to ban suicide too ? driving is completly different to doing drugs]Illogical comparison. We're not allowing people to commit suicide and suicide is an act with the intention of harming yourself. It is impossible to punish someone for killing themselves, locking up the corpse is an absurd idea. Point dropped. On the other hand driving and drug abuse is a logical comparison when it comes to the following aspects: Both can kill you; Both can cause harms to a third party; Both might turn out all right time after time without anything going wrong. The difference is that there is a much smaller chance of you getting killed when stepping into a car as compared to doing drugs. [I said it is better because it would increase in quality]Not a complete refution. Given Bath salts that have these side effects we know that they won't be sold. Making them legal would not make them any safer and they will be recalled. Hence, they become illegal again and the resolution is not fulfilled. [It would be legal … not a lot of people would use it]you're not seeing the big picture. Let's assume that you're the government. You cannot accept selling a drug that has these side effects. But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? Remember that it doesn't matter how many use it, it just has to become legal somehow. If you cannot provide substantial arguments on WHY and HOW Krokodil should become legal you've failed to fully fulfil the resolution and lose the debate. [what are the chances of that? ]Does it matter? If I pointed a gun at you and told you that there is only a 6% chance of it shooting you in the face would you allow me to pull the trigger? I know it's a small chance, but when it's your life on the line you're not going to accept that small chance. [ second of all again how does prohibition deal with it? ]I'd like to remind my opponent that this sentence isn't a magical go-to answer that fits in every single scenario: It's as valid as "How does legalization deal with that? " whenever the answer requires a few cranks to figure out. My opponent failed to explain why it's illogical to think that way . I assumed that it explained it self. I apologize: It's illogical because you're making a case out of chance. If we remove the comparison, think of the sentence: "Mikal might win the debate; we don't know. "It provides us with absolutely nothing else than guessing. In context:"assuming that if drugs were legalized more people would do it , this is not a certain thing" I gave the following reasons:-lower prices-added visibility-added accesability-more social acceptance. All these will drive the usage up. [The situation is not the same]Do explain. Until then: dropped. [Often it makes dealers , making more profit and makes companies invest in something that will produce them more profit ]I'm terribly sorry, I don't mean to be an a**hole, but I didn't understand this argument nor how it relates to the topic. Would you mind rephrasing? [all these things can change]Than why haven't they? War is legal (per say) and hasn't gotten better; oppression is illegal and is still at rise. They cannot change, they're human nature. Judge humanity accordingly. ['apart from its addictivness']fallacy: Just about the same as saying: "suicide isn't dangerous, apart from it's death rate. " Addictiveness is what makes it dangerous, that's the issue we need to fix. My opponent has a single round and he still hasn't met either of the two conditions that are required for the resolution to hold. WHY should dangerous drugs that do have a dangerous side effect be legal despite it's dangers and HOW would someone make a substance that kills you and make you a risk to others legal without interference from already existing laws and regulations? I'd like my opponent to make a structured case that properly defends the flaws of the resolution: read over my rounds and address all unaswered arguments that are not refuted and are vital to the resolution. 1). http://www.adp.ca.gov...2)http://www.drugfreeworld.org... |
30 | 9e1a911-2019-04-18T18:17:47Z-00004-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional This is a devils advocate, it may melt my brain to do this debate :PMy opponents arguments:1. Guns are not evil This is irrelevant to the premise at steak, we are arguing the constitutionality of the handgun bans. But many international studies have shown that increased gun availability causes more violent crimes. [1] But once again this point is irrelevant. 2. Second amendment My opponents line of argumentation only works if the second amendment actually was pro gun. The debate over this amendment began in the 20th century when gun crimes became a rising issue in modern day life. People for and against guns began to read the amendment differently. The word militia is used as national guard in modern terms. "The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939])."[2] "The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army." [3] "For starters, Winkler told Jeserich, the noble founding fathers, those folks who put the right to keep and bear arms in the founding document of this great nation, were not at all opposed to gun control. They had all kinds of gun laws -- most notably laws barring black people from owning guns. They also required that all muskets be regularly inspected and registered."[4]Refuted [1] http://www.gun-control-network.org...[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...[3] http://www.vpc.org...[4] http://www.sfbg.com... |
10 | 3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines No I don't think that kids should be poked every time they go to the doctors |
36 | 3bad8f8-2019-04-18T14:19:46Z-00003-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is Dance A Sport Well, either my opponent was unable to respond in round 2, or her statement that she will argue with anyone on this topic is untrue. I can only refer everyone to the arguments posted in round 1. |
12 | 8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | is birth control good or nah i think birth control is good for todays age because people are stupid and think its okay to be pregnant at 15 |
9 | 4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00007-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | wearing a school uniform at school Hi, thank you for debate with me. First our topic is "Wearing school uniform at school". My position is pro. Your position is con. We choose this topic because, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students need to wear school uniform at school. What is your opinion about this hot burning issue? |
9 | 5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should have to wear school uniforms Maybe I should have been more specific. The schools do exist. Look up "http://www.mcsk12.net... " My current school, Eminence High, also has a website. Look up "http://www.eminence.kyschools.us...; they exist. When I said 500 people per class, I meant in my graduating class, not every classroom. There is anywhere from 7 to 30 students per classroom, depending on what class it was. Also, there were 2 or 3 teachers per subject because there were so many students. The school does have a dress policy. If you want to see what it is, go to this website: http://www.mcsk12.net... I find your accusations very offensive. For your information, I am the smartest person in my GRADUATING CLASS. I am taking college courses at Bellarmine University. I focus on my school work. In fact, I take pride in my academic accomplishments. You have no idea what I do. I do not obsess about my clothes. I throw on what I pull out of my dresser. The truth is, I DO NOT CARE about my clothes. You would have to know me personally to know why. So you can assume all you want. But the reality is, you do not know me at all. The kids Cordova High had a total disregard for policy. You are under the misconception that all kids like to follow the rules. Let me make a suggestion, go visit Memphis. Maybe that will open your eyes to the truth about students' feelings for policy. The fact is that students hate being told what to do. That is why tension rise. Not because everybody is wearing the same thing, but because they are being forced to wear clothes that are uncomfortable. Your argument about why uniforms are good for parents is not very logical. Parents still have to BUY the uniforms, in addition to clothes that their kids wear outside of school. With no uniform policy, the students can wear what clothes they already have. I think that I will list all of my academic accomplishments next round if you want me to. |
48 | ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00012-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Voting at a lower age would increase participation Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don't vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don't trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won't solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, 'Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission', 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, 'Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012', 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, 'UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year', New media age, 6 August 2010 |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00009-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization |
40 | 5866798f-2019-04-18T12:20:20Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | the death penalty should be active The reason most people are against the death penalty, is because they don't know the facts and statistics. First off why send someone to life in prison when it costs more, it just doesn't make sence and second of all if the crime is damaging to one's life (The victoms family) and they are sent to say 30 years in prison it is proven that 3 out of 4 FORMER PRISONERS IN 50 STATES ARRESTED WITHIN 5 YEARS OF RELEASE |
12 | 933bdbc1-2019-04-18T11:31:43Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | serbia started th ewar serbia is very bad. this guy killed someone meaning serbia as a whole is bad. die die die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to use up all my characters;. DIE DIE DIE. The driver was bad but serbia was worse! DIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE. serbia badvDIE. DIE |
3 | c557910-2019-04-19T12:47:49Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Trade vs Aid Trade allows a fair impression of the international order to be created. One of the problems of the... |
24 | 5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00007-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Taxes on the affluent should be increased. You claim that "[federal] government revenue had [sic] been at 19.5% of GDP since the 50s." That is untrue. The post-WWII average of tax revenue is 17.7 percent of GDP "" projections of revenue for 2013 by the CBO place it at 16.9% only. In 2009, tax receipts amounted to 14.8 percent of GDP, the second lowest in recorded history. Kent Conrad was correct: tax revenues are at a 60-year low. The important point to not is that the reason that revenues are projected to climb "" to 18 percent of G.D.P. in the coming year "" is a function of the "fiscal cliff" tax increases and economic growth. Both of those claims undermine conservative ideology, though. Raising taxes should shrink revenue, they claim. Why then has the nonpartisan CBO estimated that it will continue to increase to 19.1 percent up to 2023? The answer is: we haven"t met the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve. In fact, revenue would maximize at a top effective rate of 68.7%, significantly higher than even the top marginal rate now (39.6%), and certainly higher than the rates that the affluent actually pay. As I"m sure you now, many of them pay significantly less than middle- and lower- income individuals because they either earn their income through capital gains, are able to receive special loopholes, etc. The best example is oil subsidies -- roughly $40 billion "" which Republicans continue to defend. As I stated earlier, Mitt Romney paid roughly 14% on millions in income. Paradoxically, the "47 percent" whom he criticized pay higher percentages of their incomes than does he, for they pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, user fees, state and local taxes, property taxes, etc. In the wake of welfare reform of the 90s, pushed their by a Gingrich-led Congress, their lives have been even worse. Add to that the record levels of income inequality "" the fact that CEOs now earn about 380 times the wage of an average worker, relative to 42 times in 1980. And their pay has increased since the crash, while median incomes have decreased "" in fact 93% of the gains of the economic recovery went to the top 1%. Which brings me to my next point: you mentioned corporate welfare. Why would you presume that I support corporate welfare? Do you oppose it? Excellent. You"ll agree, then, to cut oil subsidies. You"ll agree with Ronald Reagan, Art Laffer, and me that capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. You"ll support eliminating farm subsidies to affluent corporate farmers "" which the Republicans voted to fund at the same time they slashed food stamps by $40 billion. Do we have an agreement? If your answer is yes, you"ve just conceded the debate "" that"s raising taxes. If you cannot support those measures, you cannot rightfully say that you"re opposed to corporate welfare. If your argument is that we should take Mitt Romney"s idea and "broaden the base and lower the rate" then I have a few questions for you: what specific loopholes would you cut? Will it be revenue neutral, independent of dynamic scoring? Would you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires "" which, by the way, the CBO claims is the only plausible way for the plan to be revenue neutral? Also, explain to me how that will create jobs. Are you claiming that some people are able to pay virtually nothing, while others pay significantly higher rates? If that"s the case, wouldn"t raising taxes remove from these companies their incentive? To me, that sounds like a case for targeted tax hikes "" that some people will continue to produce even with higher rates, while others may be more recalcitrant. That"s the essence of my argument. But I agree with the economic research "" and with people like Paul Krugman, who look at the data and argue that the rate at which we would find ourselves in trouble is around 73-80%. Just as a slight increase in the minimum wage would not be cataclysmic "" and would not shed jobs "" slight tax increases to the tune that I"m advocating will not, either. Your next factual inaccuracy was: "If business had more money and less regulation, they could produce cheaper goods." This claim hinges on the notion that companies are suffering from a lack of productive capacity, and that rates are on the downward sloping portion of the Laffer curve. That"s inaccurate, though: I pointed out that revenues as a percentage of G.D.P. are at historic lows, that C.E.O. pay and corporate profits are at all-time highs, that the stock market is doing great, and in my last post, that taxes for the affluent are at near all-time lows. Allow me now to prove to expand on that latter point, and prove it. First, I"d like to credit the compilation of the following points to former U.S. Secretary of Labor, and Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich. He argues "" as I have "" that tax rates are at historic lows "" that the rich are paying a lower rate than they have at any time in the past half-century. Before the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, the top tax rate was 70% (and 91% under Eisenhower). Yet, in spite of credits, deductions, exemptions, and so forth, wealthy people paid about 52-56% of their income in taxes. Because many affluent individuals derive their income from capital gains, they end up paying even less. The grandest point, though, is that the affluent can afford to pay more right now. You argue that tax cuts will hinder business profits, and thus lead to less employment, lower wages, higher prices, et al. These are assumptions "" which even a very rudimentary microeconomic model would dispel, for even they account for the fact that companies will absorb some of the tax. In a lot of cases, they"ll absorb all of the tax "" e.g., meta studies demonstrates that raising the minimum wage would create jobs because it would create more demand. But there is a point, yes, where it would hinder job growth, just as there is a tax rate "" around 73% -- where companies would lose their incentive to invest and to hire. But we"re nowhere near that point: the top 1% have amassed about 20% of total income. The 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined, while the top 10 percent of households take in half of national income, instead of the historical average of a third. At the same time, the average income for the bottom 20 percent of households has fallen by approximately 3 percent since 1979, says the Census Bureau. This is in spite of nearly doubled productivity over the past 30 years -- wages have flatlined, and in most cases declined. But during the three decades following WWII, wealth inequality was far less severe, and the economy boomed as a result. Why? Because it remains true that the rich would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a larger share of a stagnant economy. And without a way to spur demand, without consumers to purchase their goods and services (and thus to employ executives, for without demand, they"d be out of business), they"d be out of luck. I don"t think we agree on this very simple point: that government can work. Yes, it wastes money; yes, it does things we don"t like (wars, drones, etc). But how about defense services, public education, infrastructure, research, air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and police and fire forces? Not only are these things critical to our survival, but many directly employ people, which sets off a multiplier effect (the famous Keynesian multiplier "" which we can discuss more later) which leads to more demand, higher wages, more employment, etc. That is the essence of a vibrant economy "" not wealthy people saving most of their money, or even spending it on luxury goods (buying a Tesla, for instance, is not going to employ millions of people who are out of work). They have more money, and therefore for each additional dollar they earn, their marginal propensity to save is much higher than their marginal propensity to consume. This is untrue for the workers I have delineated earlier, who spend nearly all of their incomes because they have to in order to survive. Surveys from business leaders are unanimous that the problems they"re facing are not overtaxation or overregulation "" but lack of sales. Finally, I would dispute your claims "" and would ask you to provide specificity "" that tax cuts lead to job expansion. I"m almost out of space, so I can"t go through each separately, but consider this: a Congressional Research Service study, which Republicans tried to conceal, holds that tax cuts are not correlated with growth in savings, investment, and productivity, but are with increased income inequality. That"s true of the 80s "" where the bulk of the "growth" in the US came about amid 11 consecutive tax increases and an exploded Pentagon budget. Even Thatcher implemented a sales tax that was disastrous for working families. And following Kennedy"s tax cuts, top marginal income tax rates were at 70%, and corporate taxes at 48%. Do you support that? Which brings me to my next point: I"ve proven to you that tax cuts don"t raise revenue, that you can not directly connect a tax cut to growth, and that income inequality is a threat. How do you justify them? How do you pay for them? Or do you support austerity measures, such as those in Europe, which are hindering any type of recovery? Your points about times that it has worked are quite vague and inconclusive, so I"d ask that you more thoroughly justify your points. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.factcheck.org... http://money.cnn.com... http://www.epi.org... http://www.foreffectivegov.org... |
33 | ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | The World Should Become Vegetarian I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs. |
19 | c99433ee-2019-04-18T19:42:09Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Same sex couples should be federally allowed to adopt. >>> Children of gay men and lesbians are vulnerable to teasing and harassment, particularly as they approach adolescence. +++ The other kids do not have to know the relationship this child's parents have. +++ This does not have significant damage and has not been reported often. Most people are accepting, like you, as the comments display. +++ American Academy of Pediatrics states that over 1 millions have adopted children. +++ This is a problem but a small one in comparison. Most children would rather have a loving, caring home, than an overcrowded, unloving home. They are willing to accept a little ridicule over lack of love and parents. >>> We should allow heterosexual first and many heterosexual couples are denied which justifies homosexuals being denied as well. +++ This is a prejudice statement. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no citizen should be denied equal protection under the law. This is discrimination and is not equal protection. +++ Heterosexual couples are denied for a particular reason. There is no shortage of children in need of adoption. If a couple is denied adoption, it should be for a reason other than their sexual orientation. In 2001, Dr. Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published a comprehensive review of the social science research on lesbian and gay parenting in the American Sociological Review. The study showed that gays were just as good parents as straight people. (www.soulforce.org) >>> Legality is not primary. +++ Legality is primary. The United States has to follow the Constitution. If we stop following the Constitution, it will lead to us loosing our freedom of speech, religion, right to deny quartering soldiers. We need to follow our Constitution. +++ For your next, stereotypical rant, I have these statements from scientific organizations:American Academy of Pediatrics "Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When two adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition."43 American Psychiatric Association "Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based, not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent."44 American Psychological Association "Research has indicated no significant differences between the capabilities of lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents when compared to heterosexual parents. However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents face challenges not encountered by most heterosexual parents because of the stigma associated with homosexuality and bisexuality. Prejudice has led to institutional discrimination by the legal, educational, and social-welfare systems. In a number of instances, lesbian, gay,and bisexual parents have lost custody of their children, have been restricted in visiting their children, have been prohibited from living with their domestic partners, and/or have been prevented from adopting or being foster parents, on the basis of their sexual orientation."45 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry "There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child. Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in the children."46 American Anthropological Association "The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies ... The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. >>> Children raised by same-sex couples demonstrate a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress... +++ This is unproven and untrue. >>> confusion regarding sexual identity +++ This is completely untrue. If you have a nerdy dad, you will not become nerdy. This rub off argument is completely untrue. >>> increased mental illness +++ Gay parenting does not make you retarded. >>> drug use, promiscuity +++ These are untrue stereotypes. >>> sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behavior +++ Having gay parents will not make you gay. >>> The 14th Amendment was initially only ratified by 28 states. +++ Yes. But by 2003, all states had ratified the amendment. +++ To void the 14th Amendment is to say that interracial marriage is overturned, abortion bans are overturned, and so are African-American voting rights. But the fact is, now, every state has ratified the amendment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> not allowing a gay couple to adopt it is not discrimination. Its preventing discrimintaion in the life of the child. +++ It certainly is discrimination. Explain how it is not discrimination. >>> The couple should be discriminated against. +++ You gave a lot of stereotypical reasons. Couples should be denied adoption rights for legitimate reasons, not for sexual orientation, which the scientific community says does not harm a child. My opponent has yet to refute constitutionality. He said all states did not raify the 14th amendment, which was good research and a little known fact, but untrue. Because the amendment was lately ratified by 2003 in every state of the union. He also tried to say constitutionality does not matter. But this is obviously untrue. Our government has to respect our Constitution. The fact is that kids are often abused and molested and always have no loving parents when in orphanages (or whatever euphemism they're using now). Most children would rather keep their parents a secret and have loving parents than live in a poor, sad, overcrowded, loveless household. Some children will even tell the truth. But most children would prefer love and attention over neglect and a lack of family. |
9 | 8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time. Intro: I age with many people that wearing what I want is great, but wearing uniforms is only in school also the benefits of school uniforms are numerous, and many schools nationwide have adopted a uniform policy in public, private and parochial settings. Not only do school uniforms help reduce the cost of a growing child's school wardrobe, but uniforms assist with discipline and behavioral issues. cont 1: School uniforms ensure people don't label others What I am saying is that with school uniforms kids will open up to each other. What I mean is that in school lets say a kid dressed in preppy clothes sees a kid with ragged like clothing or Goth clothes, he will not interact with him or make fun of him. IF all kids have uniforms they will get engaged with each other and not label them in a group. Another example is when you see kids sag their pants or whatever you assume their dumb ghetto kids which isn't' always true. Uniforms ensure kids are not labeled and ensure a higher unity amount the kids in the school. cont 2: benefits of uniforms "Preventing gang colors, etc. in schools "Decreasing violence and theft because of clothing and shoes "Instilling discipline among students "Reducing need for administrators and teachers to be 'clothes police' (for example, determining whether shorts are too short, etc.) "Reducing distractions for students http://712educators.about.com... Conclusion: As you can see uniforms have many benefits that are worth considering. I admit I like my own clothing but it would also be real nic eto have a school environment where people are treated more equally due to same outfits Response: My opponent's full main argument is that kids are limited in creativity they can express in clothes, is true but again it is only in school and they are not limited in the creativity they can exrpress in the mind. Also benefits of school uniforms outweigh the cost.c |
5 | f4542377-2019-04-18T18:18:05Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Marriage should be privatized 1) The resolution of the debate - marriage should be privatized - does not imply or require the separation of church and state as a condition for acceptance. As such, it is a debatable premise.2) My opponent concedes that marriage should be secular. My opponent's premise (the separation of church and state) is thus irrelevant, as the point of invoking the separation of church and state in the first place was to establish a separation between a religious institution (marriage) and the state. 3) My opponent falsely claims the state doesn't benefit from issuing government-sanctioned marriage contracts. My opponent is well-aware of the legal benefits granted by marriage, so let me go through a list of extra-legal benefits established by marriage: Married people report greater sexual satisfaction than people in single or cohabiting relationships [1]. Married people report higher levels of physical and psyhological health [2]. Married people are more likely to volunteer [3]. Marriage increases the likelihood of affluence [4]. Marriage doubled the probability that a person would move from a poor to a non-poor neighborhood [5]. Married men earn, on average, 20 percent more in wages than unmarried men [6]. Marriage is associated with lower mortality risk [7]. 4) The benefits of marriage produce a more stable household. This is why marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, which my opponent has conceded is a legitimate state-interest. The state thus clearly has an interest in giving its citizens marriage contracts, as marriage produces benefits that coincide with the interests of the state, including physical and pyschological health, prosperity, and a more stable and nurting household for child-rearing.5) Other studies have shown that marriage reduces crime, increases social stability, and reduces antisocial behavior such as drug use [8].6) My opponent suggests two alternatives to marriage: to provide tax-breaks solely to mothers, or to provide socialized medicine. Socializing medicine would not lead to any of the above-mentioned benefits save for increased physical healthy. As for providing tax-breaks to mothers, that would be sexist, as it completely excludes fathers from the child-rearing process. My opponent is, at least in effect, arguing for a patriarchal, male-dominated society. Government-sanctioned marriage contracts seems far more practical, as well as better for the perpetuation of a society that values equality among men and women.7) My opponent continues to insist that marriage should be privatized so that the government can have the justification to socialize. The logic here is bizarre and contradictory. It creates more social programs, and uses the abolition of marriage as a justification for these programs. Why not preserve or reform state-sanctioned marriage, since it obviously fulfills the legal and social role of all the programs my opponent advocates in the place of marriage? 8) My opponent claims that state marriages strip marriage of "romanticism." According to the studies I cite, married couples report greater sexual satisfaction. This is evidence that, if anything, marriage is more romantic than not. In fact, historically, socially, and culturally, marriage is an institution that is considered extremely romantic. A quick look at most of the romantic books (Jane Austen, for example) and movies feature marriage as a romantic institution.9) My opponent claims marriage isn't valuable because of it's legal benefits. I disagree, the legal benefits of marriage are valuable, as they provide a better environment for raising children, they help young people settle down in stable relationships, and they provide as many people as possible (through the context of a legally-binding family) with caregivers. The legal benefits are enormously valuable.10) My opponent claims that marriage is a spiritual connection. I agree, but notice that people can have a spiritual connection without marriage. Marriage embodies this spiritual connection publically, so that it can be communicated and signalled to the larger community. This is a valuable social function of marriage, as it allows a couple to establish its spiritual connection and signal it to the public sphere. If the spiritual connection remained fully private, it would invite romantic advances from strangers and would pose constant threats to the connection. I argue that being able to signal a spiritual connection publically is a benefit of marriage that is valued by the government and is, a such, yet another reason for the government to give out marriage contracts. Sources [1] Christopher F. Scott and Susan Sprecher, "Sexuality in Marriage, Dating, and Other Relationships: A Decade Review," Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 62, No. 4 (November 2000), pp. 999–1017.[2] Allan V. Horwitz, Helene R. White, and Sandra Howell-White,"Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults," Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58(November 1996), pp. 895–907.[3] Corey L. M. Keyes, "Social Civility in the United States," Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 72, No. 3 (2002), pp. 393–408.[4] Thomas A. Hirschl, Joyce Altobelli, and Mark R. Rank, "Does Marriage Increase the Odds of Affluence? Exploring the Life Course Probabilities," Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 4(November 2003), pp. 927–938.[5] Scott J. South and Kyle D. Crowder, "Escaping Distressed Neighborhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102, No. 4 (January1997), pp. 1040–1084.[6] Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, "Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium," American Economic Review, Vol. 94 (May 2004), pp. 317–321.[7] Stephanie A. Bond Huie, Robert A. Hummer, and Richard G. Rogers,"Individual and Contextual Risks of Death among Race and Ethnic Groups in the United States," Journal of Health and Social Behavior,Vol. 43 (2002), pp. 359–381.[8] http://troublesofyouth.pbworks.com...; |
12 | deb2a1a4-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Minors should need parental consent for abortions All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots. |
39 | 6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00005-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be increased While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00005-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Unfortunately, I have to forfeit this round. I been too busy with school, and wasn't able to make my arguments in time. It's up to my opponent whether he believes I should be penalized for this. I'll accept his choice.Sorry for the inconvience. |
7 | cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes. |
14 | 14554ad6-2019-04-18T18:50:51Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Naruto can beat Sasuke ~~~~~~~~~ Responses ~~~~~~~~~ /// When my opponent stated about the stats of Sasuke Uchiha and Naruto Uzumaki, it only shows Naruto when he is in his normal form. /// Yes, which is why I referred to the section as a comparison of base Naruto against base Sasuke. It was to show the readers that without enhancement, Sasuke outranks Naruto as a ninja. A point that is central to my arguments. ~ /// Naruto's ninjutsu would also be stronger than Sasuke's. /// That's not how ninjutsu really works. The score is to show that Sasuke knows more ninjutsu than Naruto does and is better able to utilize it in battle. ~ /// Naruto has always been bad at genjustu but since he has his senjutsu and his nine-tails form, he could just stop the flow of Sasuke's genjutsu. /// It's been a while since I've read the series. Is there any reason that genjutsu wouldn't work on Naruto? This is why your arguments need sources. ~ /// Naruto can summon a bunch of clones to make a wall or dome that 'Almighty Push' could just get through it, he would then go into his senjutsu mode and kill Sasuke as stated in my arguments in Round 2. /// I don't know what this means. Almighty Push is one of Nagato's attacks. It would be great if my opponent could expand or rephrase this. ~~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~~ /// (1)Naruto has never been been shown to enter Sage mode while in the middle of a fight. .. but it doesn't matter since he can also do it in battle. (2)The Sharingan allows Sasuke to track Naruto's chakra and movement but when Naruto uses Shadow clone jutsu, all of his clones have the same amount of chakra as the original which is spread within the others. Naruto can then summon a whole bunch of clones and Sasuke wouldn't have known who the real Naruto is. /// (1) You've almost literally just said, "he's never done it, but it doesn't matter because he can do it. " I hope you understand how ridiculous of a point this is. (2) That the Sharingan allows Sasuke to track movement is precisely why Naruto won't be able to enter Sage mode in the middle of their battle. It has nothing to due with not being able to distinguish the real Naruto from the fakes by detecting chakra. As mentioned earlier, to gather the nature chakra Naruto must remain perfectly still. All Sasuke would have to do is target the one that is standing still. ~ /// (3)My opponent stated that going into his nine-tails form would be his downfall since he can't use his tailed-beast ball. (4)This wouldn't be his downfall cause Naruto can also go into his senjutsu mode in nine-tails form which is seen when Naruto was versing the Nine-tails. ( he would have to go into his senjutsu form then go into his nine-tails). .. (5)And when Naruto injured himself, it was because it was his first time using it and he used too much power into that kick. /// (3) Incorrect, I said that since Naruto has not yet learned to control himself when in the Nine-Tails Chakra mode he would lose in a fight to Sasuke. (4) Umm, we did not see naruto go into Nine-Tails Chakra mode when he was fighting the Nine-Tailed Fox. What we did see was the beginnings of the Nine-Tailed Fox begin to take over his body and begin to enter his Jinchuriki forms [13][14] which are very different than his Nine-Tailed Chakra form [15]. Then there's the ponit that when [14] was happening Naruto was not even in Sage Mode, which you can tell by looking at his eyes [16]. (5) That's exactly my point. When that happened it was the first time Naruto had used the ability, and he has not trained with the form at all since then except to manipulate the chakra arms. There is no reason to think that he would be able to control himself in the form yet. ~ /// Naruto's speed in his nine-tails form increases his speed /// To repeat, Naruto can not control that form yet. He may be faster and stronger, but those powers mean that he loses most of his fighting ability. ~ /// Naruto knows Frog Kata /// Frog Kata is basically what Sage Mode is, and until you show that Naruto can actually get into Sage Mode this point holds little weight. Even if he could, it just increase his physical abilities and adds an aura around his body that extends the range of his close-range attacks by a few inches [17]. As you can see near the end of the video, the aura does not add much range. It certainly doesn't mean that "even if he misses Sasuke, it would punch him. " ~~~~~~~~ Arguments ~~~~~~~~ As there is no way that Naruto can beat Sasuke when in Nine-Tails Chakra mode due to his lack of control over the form, and that if fighting at base levels Sasuke is clearly superior to Naruto and would not likely lose. These are too attempt to show that even if Naruto could get into Sage Mode, he would still lose to Sasuke. Amaterasu + Partial Susanoo [18]: Using Amaterasu, Sasuke is able to make whatever he looks at burst into black flames that are inextinguishable until they've burned through what they've attached themselves to. Since this attack is vision-based it is very hard to dodge. In the second video at the four minute mark, Raikage is only able to dodge it using a teleportation jutsu comparable to the one used by the fourth hokage mentioned by my opponent. Naruto is shown to be able to move at this speed when in Nine-Tails Chakra mode, but not when in Sage Mode. If Naruto is hit with this attack he is dead. Period. Sasuke is also able to use a partial form of the ninjutsu known as Susanoo as a full body shield that surrounds his person. This shield is able to offer near perfect protection to his body and even allowed him to survive a Liger Bomb [18][19] performed by the Fourth Raikage. As mentioned by another character, no one before Sasuke has ever survived having that attack performed on them. Not only did the shield keep him from being killed, he also appears to not have taken much damage from the attack. The real power of these attacks is that Sasuke is able to combine them by infusing the bones of Susanoo with the flames of Amaterasu. Meaning that anyone who attempts to touch him has to do so at the sacrifice of their limbs. As shown in the second video (4:49), the Fourth Raikage only gains the upper hand when he punches Sasuke through the Amaterasu/Susanoo shield, which in return for the attack caused him to lose the arm (second video; 6:21). Since Sasuke now knows that enemies will sacrifice their bodies to attack him when using this ability, it would only be doubly difficult to use this tactic against him. This is close to a perfect defense. Complete Susanoo: If the partial Susanoo + Amaterasu is close to a perfect defense, the complete Susanoo is a perfect defense. It completely surrounds the user in many layers of defense and can attack using a magical crossbow. However, this probably wouldn't help him actually fight against Naruto. The increased speed that comes from Frog Kata would likely make it so that Naruto could dodge the bolts. The real advantage to using this technique is that Sasuke is shown to maintain it for at least ten minutes [19]. Naruto is only able to maintain Sage Mode for five minutes [20]. This essentially means that if Naruto is able to enter Sage Mode, all Sasuke has to do is wait him out. ~~~~~ Therefore, in a battle Sasuke would be able to defeat Naruto. ~~~ Sources: [13] . http://bit.ly... [14] . http://s1-c.animea-server.net... [15] . http://bit.ly... [16] . http://bit.ly... [17] First Video . http://www.youtube.com... [18] Second Video . http://www.youtube.com... [19] . http://manga.animea.net... (Entire chapter) [20] . http://bit.ly... |
14 | 3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Birth Control I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas. |
47 | abf49bd8-2019-04-18T16:32:16Z-00009-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be banned. I define homework "schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home" and banned "as prohibited by law". Thank you. |
41 | d8daa153-2019-04-18T15:42:57Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | studying is not the only way to get rich Hi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that "SOME OF THEASE" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide "not all of them, and it is a real fact and not "OUTRAGIOUS" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had "8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over "40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his "1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the "14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 "" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it"s been severely under-reported. I can"t ignore it though, because I"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America "I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness." source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, "Up to Our Eyeballs" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he "retires," in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly "peace of mind", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those" successfully hired graduates" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are "underemployed" not "unemployed" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education "" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads "In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to "" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....) |
34 | 13e668a0-2019-04-18T15:45:58Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Capitalism is dying Thank you Domr for accepting the challenge. Within the last century, capitalism has transformed most of the world into an industrial economy and has indeed successfully increased our production and technological innovation. Though, capitalism, in the traditional sense, is now gradually withering to an end. To prove my argument, I will first walk through and explain the current events and trends.But first let me briefly identify what I mean by capitalism in the "traditional sense": 1. Top-down structure of corporations, institutions, and establishments2. Competition (me vs. them)3. Individualistic, autonomous, and self-interest driven4. Acquisition of property is the measuring stick of success5. Profit is priority In the past, every society and civilization's economic success depended around three major components: a form of energy, communication, and mobility. These 3 major components ultimately determined the structure and complexity of a society. For instance, in the 1st Industrial Revolution (18th/19th century), coal and steam power were the form of energy, the printing press/telegraph were the form of communication, and locomotive was the form of mobility. During the 2nd Industrial Revolution (19th/20th century), oil and centralized electricity became the major the form of energy, radio and television were the form of communication, and the internal-combustion engine became the form of mobility.Fast forward to the 21st century, and we're now at the onset of a "3rd Industrial Revolution" where a new shift in the 3 major economic components is occurring. In the last decade, the Internet has become the new way of communication. Millions of people are now communicating on their mobile devices through social network sites such as Skype, Twitter and Facebook. The form of energy is transitioning into renewable energy. Finally our mobility is transitioning into electric and fuel-celled cars, along with autonomous vehicles and drones for logistics. How are these new shifts in communication, energy, and mobility affecting capitalism?Simply put, the main disrupting force is technology. Let me explain.There is a great paradox embedded at the root of the capitalist system, which previously has been responsible for its remarkable success within the last century, is now leading itself to an end. This paradox is what's called "marginal cost". In capitalism, the goal of every business is to decrease their marginal cost so that they can maximize their profit, put out cheaper products for customers, and become more competitive against other businesses. With the advent of the Internet along with exponential growth of computing, marginal costs have been reduced to near zero. Since the Internet, people have started to share information with each other such as in Wikipedia, music/videos through Youtube and file sharing sites, ebooks, news through blogs and other social media sites nearly for free. This has caused many industries to go out of business such as newspapers, book publishing, music, etc. This phenomenon is what's called 'zero marginal cost', a term coined by Jeremy Rifkin who is the author of the book "Zero Marginal Cost Society" among other several books.The Internet has allowed people to become prosumers instead of just consumers. They only have to pay for the initial fixed cost to put up a website, but the marginal cost thereafter is very small and sometimes zero. Additionally, because of the exponential growth of computers, fixed costs are also quickly decreasing. Information is essentially becoming free and anybody can learn almost anything online, which has also started to shake traditional educational institutions. It has been transforming what used to be a top-down structure of capitalism into a laterally-distributed, collaborative network platform. For the most part, the Internet has essentially become a shared-collaborative economy and is only growing. So how can businesses compete with all these free information goods? But it doesn't stop there. EnergyMore people will be transitioning to renewable energy over the next decade. Renewable energy such as solar is following a similar exponential trend as the computer chips; it's quickly becoming cheaper and more efficient. Additionally, renewable energy has zero marginal cost. After putting up the initial fixed cost of a solar panel, all of the energy it collects from the sun is 100% free. Every home and building will become a mini power plant producing its own green electricity and sharing the excess back into the grid. EU countries such as Germany and Denmark, as well as China have already been making a significant transition to clean renewable sources and laying out their infrastructure. Centralized power utility companies, especially in Germany are currently facing an existential threat and have been scrambling for new ways to keep profits alive. MobilityElectric and autonomous vehicles will soon become more common in the next decade. Currently, an electric car company called Tesla Motors has already begun leading the way with its Model S electric sedan, which has simply shocked the automobile industry. It has already gained many accolades such as the highest NHTSA safety rating of any car, as well as achieving a near perfect score in the Consumer Reports, claiming it's the "best car we've ever tested", and has become the best-selling luxury car in its first year. Yes they're expensive for now, but in a few years a 3rd Gen model will be in the range of $35k USD which would completely change the game. Just as Apple's iPhone revolutionized the mobile industry, Tesla is revolutionizing the automobile industry and is setting a whole new standard for other car companies to soon follow. This just shows the potential of electric cars and where transportation is ultimately heading. Internet of ThingsOver the next decade, this 'zero marginal cost' phenomenon will take over not just information goods, but soon physical goods and energy as well. The Internet is now expanding to what will soon become known as "the Internet of Things", where almost every physical thing will be have a microchip and become connected to the network, feeding data. Again this is becoming possible with the exponential growth and price decline of computer chips. The Internet of Things is the hammer that will eventually nail capitalism to its coffin. It won't happen overnight, but gradually over the next few decades. This Internet of things will ultimately converge the 3 major components altogether, the communication internet converging with the energy and transportation/logistics into one self-sustaining distributed interconnected platform. Our communication and transportation will be powered by the near-free energy from our renewable sources. Just as we are sharing information goods on the information Internet, we will be able to share our excess energy with each other through the energy Internet. Since the sun is not always shining and the wind is not always blowing, one part of the world where there's plenty of sun during the day could share its excess energy to another part where it is night time and so on. Furthermore, an emerging technology called 3D printing is changing the manufacturing industry. In the near future, people will share and download the blueprint files of physical goods over the Internet, and "print" most of the items at home using their own 3D printer. 3D printers will allow the marginal cost of producing physical goods to drop to possibly near zero, especially now with 3D printers capable of using recycled materials. Automation and UnemploymentThe majority of jobs are going to be phased out in the next few decades due to automation. This trend has already been happening such as in car factories, self-checkouts in stores, etc. As technology progresses, eventually almost everything that can, will be automated by a machine or a computer software. So what does this mean for purchasing power???...Sorry, ran out of space... |
Subsets and Splits