query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
46 | e98fe508-2019-04-18T14:13:32Z-00005-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported Border Terror DA Links Border Border surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism Wilson 2/26 (Reid Wilson, covers national politics and Congress for The Washington Post and author of Read In, The Post"s morning tip sheet on politics. He's a former editor in chief of The Hotline, the premier tip sheet on campaigns and elections and a graduate of The George Washington University, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border", February 26 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com...) A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. [Drone strike kills senior al-Shabab official in Somalia] Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Border surveillance is k2 preventing terrorism Smarick et al. 12 (Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. 11/12 "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants" START, http://www.start.umd.edu... CCC) An essential step in this project was determining the frequency and dynamics of border crossings by individuals who conducted or who wanted to conduct terrorism-related activities in the United States. Towards that goal, the project built upon the existing holdings of the American Terrorism Study (ATS) in this effort. The ATS, housed at the University of Arkansas, catalogs and systematically codes information on more than 300 Federal court cases involving Federal terrorist charges since 1980 and, following a review of other possible resources, proved to be the most useful starting point for compiling open-source, quantitative data on terrorist border crossings. Since 1989, the American Terrorism Study (ATS) has received lists of court cases and associated indictees that resulted from an official FBI terrorism investigation spanning 1980 through 2004. Housed at the University of Arkansas" Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright College (TRC), the ATS now includes almost 400 cases from the FBI lists. Of these, approximately 75% of cases have complete court documentation, and almost all of those collected have been coded into the ATS database, while the ATS team continues to track new cases by collecting, reviewing, and coding new and additional court documentation. The ATS includes terrorism incidents and attacks, thwarted or planned terrorism incidents sometimes referred to as preventions, material support cases for terrorism, general terrorism conspiracies, and in some cases, immigration fraud; the common denominator among all ATS events is that the FBI investigated these events as terrorism-related incidents. During preliminary research for this project, court records from 378 terrorism cases found in the ATS dataset were reviewed for information on potential border crossing events related to terrorism cases. The documents for each court case were manually reviewed by researchers to determine whether the collected records reported that one of the defendants or accomplices in a case crossed a U.S. border at some point. Thirty-eight percent of the reviewed cases"145 cases"from 1980 through 2004 were found to either have: " direct mention of a border crossing in the court documents, or " a link to a terrorism incident that involved a known border crossing, either before or after an incident. After compiling this list of court cases for inclusion, each identified court case was then linked to a criminal incident involving terrorism charges. Initial reviews revealed a connection to a border-crossing event in a total of 58 successful terrorist attacks, 51 prevented or thwarted attacks, 26 material support cases, 33 immigration fraud incidents, and 4 general terrorism conspiracies. Additional reviews of relevant information on indictees and their activities resulted in a reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks associated with these individuals to a total of 43. Appendix 2 provides more details on the data collection process and how a reliable collection methodology was established to create the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing Dataset (USTBC), using the ATS as a starting point. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 12 Systematic evaluation by the research team revealed that the American Terrorism Study is a reliable and useful resource for identifying individuals associated with terrorist attacks or terrorist criminal cases (such as conspiracies) and for determining which of these individuals crossed U.S. borders in advance of or in the wake of their terrorism-related behavior. This is largely because the ATS is based on court documents, which among sources of data on terrorism are the most likely to reference relevant border crossing activity. The Global Terrorism Database, which is based primarily on media sources, can serve a supporting role in this research, but the ATS is the primary source allowing for construction of a new, relational database on U.S. Terrorist Border Crossings (USTBCs). That being said, it is important to recognize that the ATS is not a perfect data source. As noted above, its contents are limited to individuals and information related to court cases in which one or more defendant was charged with Federal terrorism charges. As such, the contents of ATS clearly represent a subset of all terrorists or attempted terrorists in the United States, as it systematically omits those who: " were never arrested or faced any charges, " were charged with offenses not directly related to terrorism, " were charged at the non-Federal level, or " were engaged in dangerous activity that does not meet the FBI"s definition of a terrorism case. Throughout this project, the research team was careful to respect the limitations of this data collection and to draw conclusions that recognize that the border crossing events included in this project likely represent a non-representative subset of all border crossing attempts by terrorists or intended terrorists. Despite these limitations, though, the data that was built upon the baseline of ATS provides important insights into the nexus between border crossings and terrorism. The U.S. Terrorism Border Crossing Dataset The final versions of the codebooks used to develop the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing (USTBC) data collection are presented in Appendix 3. Based upon knowledge gained from pilot efforts (as discussed above and in Appendix 2), the project resulted in two codebooks"one focused on dynamics of a bordercrossing event involving someone associated with a Federal terrorism court case, and another focused on the characteristics of the individuals associated with Federal charges who were involved in the bordercrossing event. Data collection for the USTBC lasted for approximately one year and was primarily conducted by research assistants at the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.3 The resultant data that comprise the USTBC are available in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides a snapshot summary of these data, which include detailed information on the location of an attempted crossing, the timing of a crossing relative to attempted or actual terrorist activity, the origin or destination of an attempted crossing, and more. The data also include specific information on border crossers, including their citizenship status, their criminal history, and key demographics (including level of education, marital status, etc.) Appendix 5 provides descriptive statistics from the border-crossing and border-crosser data. 3 Special thanks to Kim Murray and Summer Jackson of the Terrorism Research Center for their efforts in combing through the courtcase material and assembling these data for the USTBC. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 13 Border Crossings Identified in USTBC Attempts to Enter the United States Of the 221 border crossings identified in this project as involving individuals who were indicted by the U.S. government in terrorism-related cases, the majority (129 crossings) involved an individual attempting to enter the United States, while the remainder (92 crossings) involved an individual attempting to exit the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the attempted border crossings were successful, rather than being thwarted by law enforcement or foiled by some other events or developments. Additional discussion on the nature of successful crossings versus those who were apprehended at the border is presented below. Among those attempts to enter the United States, the most frequent origin for these crossing efforts was Canada.4 But, as Figure 2 illustrates, such attempted entries originated from all corners of the world. US Border Patrol proves that surveillance is key to anti-terror efforts Stamey 14 (Barcley; DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY: SHOULD AMERICANS FEAR THE EYE IN THE SKY; March 2014) The leading national agency currently using drones to combat a wide range of domestic threats is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. With its fleet of seven MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-1 Guardians"Predators modified for marine surveillance"CBP 26 is at the forefront of large-scale drone operations. With an annual budget exceeding $11 billion, CBP is well equipped for protecting our national security while combating potential terrorist threats.55 But how efficiently are those funds being used, and what is meant by effectiveness? According to Merriam-Webster, effectiveness is "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect or result."56 Ultimately, that desired result is safe international borders. Accomplishing this result involves the apprehension of illegal immigrants, interdiction of illicit drugs, and prevention of terrorist infiltration, which CBP does quite well, but with respect to UAS, effectiveness must be viewed on a much broader scale. This section takes into account the size of CBP, its operational budget, and couples it with published results. According to CBP, the primary mission of drone use is "anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity."57 CBP uses its Predators and Reapers to accomplish this goal through human detection and tracking, surface asset coordination, and threat detection through IR sensors in multiple scenarios. Previously mentioned sensor suites allow the Predator to detect movement along the border, identify actual personnel numbers, and track the location of threats all while being unobserved to the individuals on the ground. With their long loiter times, Predators allow officials to monitor gaps along the border while maximizing the efforts of ground personnel in actual interdiction missions. After witnessing the functionality of actual Predator operations in Afghanistan, this author realizes the value in having high definition video sensors overhead during dangerous operations. This type of technology certainly has a place in homeland security missions, and future capabilities will provide a clear advantage to U.S. personnel in combating border security. This force multiplier mindset is one CBP has adopted and publicizes regularly to justify the success of its drone program. Long loiter times, remote area access, and flexibility during National Special Security Events are common claims. Border security stops terrorism Zuckerman, Bucci, Carafano, no date (Jessica Zuckerman, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policyj and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, 13, 7-22-2013, "60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org... CCC) Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser"April 2013. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were arrested in April 2013 for attempting to carry out an attack on a Via Railway train travelling from Canada to the U.S. The attack, authorities claimed, was supported by an al-Qaeda element in Iran, although there is currently no evidence that it was state-sponsored.[205] The exact route of the targeted train has not been identified, and Iranian authorities vehemently deny that al-Qaeda is operating within Iranian borders. Esseghaier and Jaser have been charged in Canada with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group, participating in a terrorist group, and conspiring to interfere with transportation facilities for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier has also been charged with participating in a terrorist group, and both men face up to life in prison.[206] The two men are awaiting trial. Chiheb Esseghaier wants to represent himself, basing his defense on the Quran instead of on the Canadian criminal code, which has caused delays in the proceedings.[207] Continued use of border surveillance technology is crucial to the detection of and response to threats on the border Haddal 10, Specialist in Immigration Policy, 8/11/10 (Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service report, August 11, 2010, "Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol" https://www.fas.org..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) Perhaps the most important technology used by the Border Patrol are the surveillance assets currently in place at the border. The program has gone through several iterations and name changes. Originally known as the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS), the program"s name was changed to the America"s Shield Initiative (ASI) in FY2005. DHS subsequently folded ASI into the Secure Border Initative (SBI) and renamed the program SBInet Technology (SBInet). Once it is beyond the pilot phase, SBInet will, according to DHS, develop and install "new integrated technology solutions to provide enhanced detection, tracking, response, and situational awareness capabilities."19 The other program under SBI is the SBI Tactical Infrastructure program, which, according to DHS, "develops and installs physical components designed to consistently slow, delay, and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity."20 In the late 1990s, the Border Patrol began deploying a network of Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems (i.e., camera systems), underground sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network designed to detect illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. This Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) attempted to ensure seamless coverage of the border by combining the feeds from multiple color, thermal, and infrared cameras mounted on different structures into one remote-controlled system with information generated by sensors (including seismic, magnetic, and thermal detectors). When a sensor is tripped, an alarm is sent to a central communications control room at a USBP station or sector headquarters. USBP personnel monitoring the control room screens use the ICAD system to re-position RVS cameras towards the location where the sensor alarm was tripped (although some camera positions are fixed and cannot be panned). Control room personnel then alert field agents to the intrusion and coordinate the response. Information gathered from surveillance activities is key to any effective response to terrorist threats along the border Fisher 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief, 5/8/12 (Michael, Department of Homeland Security, "Written testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security hearing titled "Measuring Border Security: U.S. Border Patrol"s New Strategic Plan and the Path Forward."" http://www.dhs.gov...; accessed 7/15/15 JH@ DDI) Information gathered from reconnaissance, community engagement, sign-cutting and technology together provide situational awareness and intelligence and helps us to best understand and assess the threats we face along our borders. Information and intelligence will empower Border Patrol leadership and front line agents to get ahead of the threat, be predictive and proactive. Integration denotes CBP corporate planning and execution of border security operations, while leveraging partnerships with other federal, state, local, tribal, and international organizations. Integration of effort with these organizations will ensure we bring all available capabilities and tools to bear in addressing threats. Lastly, through rapid response, we will deploy capabilities efficiently and effectively to meet and mitigate the risks we confront. Put simply, rapid response means the Border Patrol and its partners can quickly and appropriately respond to changing threats. Goal 1: Secure America"s Borders The 2012 Strategic Plan has two interrelated and interdependent goals. In the first goal, the Border Patrol will work with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to secure America"s borders using information, integration and rapid response in a risk-based manner. There are five objectives within this goal: Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States Manage Risk Disrupt and Degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) Whole-of-Government Approach Increase Community Engagement I. Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States The current risk environment is characterized by constantly evolving threats that are both complex and varying, and the Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats. The Border Patrol"s ability to prevent and disrupt such threats is enhanced through increased information sharing and operational integration, planning, and execution with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners. Integration with our federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners" intelligence and enforcement capabilities into the planning and execution of CBP operations is critical to our ability to secure our nation"s borders. The use of necessary surveillance technology is key to the identification and prevention of terrorist threats on the border Office of Border Patrol 4, September 2004 (THE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, "National Border Patrol Strategy" http://www.au.af.mil..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) The Border Patrol currently uses a mix of agents, information, and technology to control the border. The Border Patrol"s ability to establish situational awareness, monitor, detect, respond to, and identify potential terrorists, instruments of terrorism, and criminals relies heavily on interdiction and deterrence-based technology. Having the necessary technology to support the Border Patrol priority and traditional missions cannot be overstated. In the future, there must be continued assessment, development, and deployment of the appropriate mix of personnel, technology, and information to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border and ensure that resources are deployed in a cost-effective, efficient fashion. Technology which enhances operational awareness and effectiveness includes camera systems for day/ night/infrared work, biometric systems such as IDENT/IAFIS, processing systems like ENFORCE, sensoring platforms, large-scale gamma X-rays, and aerial platforms, and other systems. Technologies requiring modernization include wireless and tactical communications and computer processing capabilities. Coordination between Border Patrol and inspectional personnel at the ports of entry ensures the most efficient use of trained personnel and technology. In the future, the Border Patrol will take advantage of the targeting and selectivity tools made available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the National Targeting Center. The continued testing, evaluation, acquisition, and deployment of appropriate border enforcement technologies will be pursued vigorously so that the maximum force-multiplier effect is achieved in support of both the priority and traditional missions. Any gap in security on the border allows international terror groups to come into the United States Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com... jf] A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Maximized surveillance on the border is key to stopping terrorism Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., jf] One of the unexpected results of our study was recognition of the importance of networked intelligence in elaborating objectives for and measuring effectiveness of border security.11 This came about for many reasons. First, all of the focus missions are best understood in national terms: Border security contributes significantly to several high-level national objectives, but results depend sensitively on interactions with and the performance of other federal and local agencies, as well as economic and demographic conditions outside of DHS"s control. Second, national-level effectiveness depends not just on individual component or agency effectiveness but also on components" ability to share information and work collaboratively, i.e., to network. This is perhaps most obvious with respect to preventing terrorism, in that individuals might enter the country who are vaguely suspicious but who cannot reasonably be arrested at the border. Responsibility for follow-up then transfers to, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the FBI"s ability to follow up"either immediately or when further information emerges"might depend critically on information collected and effectively transferred by border agencies to the FBI. The word "effectively" is key because all agencies are deluged with data. The 9/11 Commission"s report dramatized the consequences of ineffectiveness: It is not that information for apprehending the perpetrators did not exist, but rather that the dots were not connected and the relevant agencies did not cooperate well (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). Third, national-level law enforcement also depends on the effectiveness of the justice system, including the ability to convict and punish. That, in turn, often depends on authorities being able to construct an extensive, fact-based story of criminal behavior from which, cumulatively, guilt can reasonably be inferred by a jury. Fourth, the nature and quality of information collected by border-security components, the consistency with which it is collected, and the effectiveness with which the data are both transferred to national databases and"where appropriate"highlighted in cross-agency actions, are leverage points for improved national-level effectiveness, especially in relation to terrorism- or drug-related functions. Border-security eff orts sometimes will query detected travelers against data sets of known or suspected terrorists or criminals. This is especially relevant at ports of entry, ports of egress in some modes, and in cases in which border enforcement detains an illegal crosser. In other settings, border-enforcement agencies collect as much information as possible on individuals, their conveyances, license plates, accounts, and other records of persons detained for crossing illegally but for whom no prior records exist. The same is true in the maritime regions when individuals are arrested for illegal drug smuggling or illegal migrant smuggling. The collected information can become future tactical intelligence (and used in prosecutions) if the detained person becomes involved in criminal or terrorist functions at a later date. Discussions with component agencies indicate that this is an important capability to measure. Technologically, it is even possible to tag individuals so that subsequent surveillance within the United States (or another country) is possible.12 Border surveillance prevents terrorist groups from attempting attacks Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., pg 19, jf] The principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on flows into the country of people or materials. These contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Through a number of planning efforts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security efforts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). This decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when border-security measures are perceived to be effective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all. This could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture. For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fingerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. This effort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more difficult for terrorists to evade border-security efforts. Drones Drones are critical to combat bio- and chemical-terror Koerner 2015 (Matthew R, Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2015, "DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: REDEFINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY", 64 Duke L.J. 1129) Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch advocate of governmental surveillance n1 and Chairman of the 113th Congress's Senate Intelligence Committee, n2 recently found herself, rather ironically, as the target of surveillance. n3 One day at her home, Senator Feinstein walked to the window to check on a protest that was taking place outside. n4 Much to her surprise, a small drone n5 hovered on the other side of the window, only inches away, spying on her. n6 The drone immediately flew away. n7 Senator Feinstein's experience is just one example of drones being used for surveillance within the United States. But her story and others like it n8 have sparked significant controversy over the use of drones for domestic surveillance, which falls within a broader debate [*1131] on privacy and governmental surveillance programs. n9 Advocates of robust federal surveillance policies champion governmental surveillance as the only way to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States. n10 President Barack Obama defended these surveillance programs as ""modest encroachments on privacy'" that "strike the "right balance' between national security and civil liberties." n11 In comparison, privacy advocates envision these surveillance programs leading to a dystopian, totalitarian government watching over its citizenry - undetected but omnipresent. n12 References to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four n13 abound. n14 [*1132] Apart from the surrounding privacy-concerns debate, drones currently provide many practical benefits and their projected applications seem limitless. n15 Based on their obvious advantage of being unmanned, drones have the capability to conduct missions previously considered too risky, dangerous, or impracticable. These applications are also provided at continuously decreasing costs and with the latest technological sophistication, such as the capability to see through physical obstructions, to detect various chemical and biological agents in the air, to recognize human faces and license plates, and to fly in strategic, coordinated formations. n16 Drones provide effective surveillance of the borders Spagat 2014 (Elliot, "Drones replacing officers in Mexican border surveillance", Nov 13; www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20141113/drones-replacing-officers-in-mexican-border-surveillance) The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border. It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled " to surpass 18,000 " and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles. Under the new approach, Predator B aerial drones, used in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials with direct knowledge of the effort said on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts, who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes " perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or perhaps a drug-laden Hummer, they said. About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, while the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity " footprints, broken twigs, trash. About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol"s parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there"s not traffic, whether it"s tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" " showing there isn"t anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences. The strategy was launched without fanfare and is being expanded as President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while noting surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who coauthored legislation last year to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 350 miles of fencing to the southwest border, said, "If there are better ways of ensuring the border is secure, I am certainly open to considering those options." Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and from between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The first step is for Border Patrol sector chiefs to identify areas least likely to attract smugglers, typically those far from towns and roads. Analysts scour the drone videos at operations centers in Riverside; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Sierra Vista. After an initial survey, the drones return within a week for another sweep. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about drones since Customs and Border Protection introduced them in 2006, saying there is potential to monitor innocent people under no suspicion. Lothar Eckardt, the agency"s executive director of national air security operations, said law-abiding people shouldn"t worry and that cameras are unable to capture details like license plate numbers and faces on the ground. He looked on one September morning as a drone taxied down a runway in Sierra Vista, lifted off with a muffled buzz and disappeared over a rocky mountain range into a blue Arizona sky. About a dozen computer screens line the wall of their trailer, showing the weather, maps and real-time images of the ground below. Eckardt said there is "no silver bullet" for addressing border security but that using drones in highly remote areas is part of the overall effort. If there"s nothing there, he said, "let"s not waste the manpower here. Let"s focus our efforts someplace else, where they"re needed." Drones are necessary to protect the border Ingram 2013 (David, How drones are used for domestic surveillance, Jun 19, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-domestic-surveillance) The U.S. government has made no secret of its use of drones to monitor the United States border with Mexico. The Obama administration has been defending its surveillance tactics since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden released secret documents revealing a massive database of daily telephone records, as well as coordination between the NSA and social media companies. The programs are designed to target militants outside the United States who are suspected of planning attacks, but they inevitably gather some data on Americans, U.S. officials said. In a May speech, Obama defended the use of armed drones abroad but said the United States should never deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. The Justice Department had disclosed that two domestic law enforcement agencies use unmanned aircraft systems, according to a department statement sent to the Judiciary Committee and released on Wednesday by Grassley's office. The two are the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday asking why the Justice Department did not earlier mention the FBI's use of drones. At Wednesday's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said she was concerned about the privacy implications of drone surveillance. "The greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today," Feinstein said. Mueller reiterated that drone use is rare. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs," he said. Mueller is due to retire when his term expires in September. Border drones effectively and efficiently monitor the border RussiaTimes "14 (November 13, 2014, http://rt.com..., 7-3-15) Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States" border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can"t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy R10; known internally as "change detection" R10; since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence R10; like footprints, broken twigs, trash R10; of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It"s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people R10; plus maintenance staff R10; to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB"s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. "Instead, the question is: Why can"t we have more of them in my district?" Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. "Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones," McNeal said. "This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress." The agency"s "unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations," a CBP official told Nextgov. The president"s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine. Domestic drones k2 solve for terrorism Bauer 13 (Max Bauer, of ACLU of Massachusetts 9-11-2013, "Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation," https://privacysos.org... CCC) Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, are an emerging and rapidly-expanding development in domestic surveillance technology. [4] On Valentine"s Day 2012, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, legislation authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop regulations to facilitate the growing usage of drones in domestic airspace. [5] Drones are best known for their use in military operations [6] including the use of weaponized drones for targeted killing. But drones have been used for domestic surveillance purposes for years [7] and their usage is expected to grow exponentially. [8] The FAA has issued 1,428 drone operator permits since 2007 (as of mid-February) and predicts there will be 10,000 drones deployed within the next five years. [9] A public information request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that numerous universities and law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones by the FAA. [10] Of course, the widespread use of drones for domestic surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. [11] Drones can be outfitted with high definition [12] and infrared cameras, [13] and even license plate readers. [14] Drones "present unique threats to privacy," in the words of one privacy advocate. [15] Why? They are smaller " potentially insect-sized, [16] can fly longer " perhaps soon in perpetuity, [17] and are not bound by the historical, practical check on law enforcement excesses we've had as a result of limited police resources. [18] In a seminal 1890 law review article aptly-titled The Right to Privacy, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized that "instantaneous photographs" have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life"Of the desirability " indeed of the necessity " of some such protection there can, it is believed, be no doubt." [19] Brandeis and his co-author Samuel Warren were ahead of their time when they wrote that article but even they couldn"t foresee anything like the domestic surveillance schemes that have arisen over a century later. Drones Used in Massachusetts and Response to Boston Marathon Bombings. Late in 2012, the Boston Globe reported that a SWAT team in Massachusetts had filed an application with the FAA for a drone. [20] As of April 2013, there were no police drones yet in Massachusetts but Waltham-based defense contractor Raytheon was flying many of them in testing capacities. [21] Surveillance and war contracting companies hope to expand their market from military to domestic law enforcement. [22] Following the explosion of two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, parts of the city shut down as the search for a suspect continued, prompting Ron Paul to write: "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself." [23] Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the public shortly afterward that he seeks more surveillance cameras (there are already hundreds) in downtown Boston. [24] And further, he said, he wants to have drone surveillance for next year"s marathon. [25] Drones K2 stop terrorism Byman, 13 (Daniel L. Byman, Director of research at Center for Middle East Policy, 8/2013, http://www.brookings.edu... CCC) The Obama administration relies on drones for one simple reason: they work. According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban"top figures who are not easily replaced. In 2010, Osama bin Laden warned his chief aide, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was later killed by a drone strike in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in 2011, that when experienced leaders are eliminated, the result is "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders" and who are prone to errors and miscalculations. And drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers. Drones have also undercut terrorists" ability to communicate and to train new recruits. In order to avoid attracting drones, al Qaeda and Taliban operatives try to avoid using electronic devices or gathering in large numbers. A tip sheet found among jihadists in Mali advised militants to "maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts" and "avoid gathering in open areas." Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits. Drones have turned al Qaeda"s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders Drones take out terrorist leaders Al-Haj, 15 (Ahmed Al-Haj, writer for the Stars & Stripes and AP the big story, 7/10/2015, http://www.stripes.com... CCC) Yemeni security and military officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida members travelling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla. The officials say the airstrike took place on Friday night in Mukalla, the capital of Yemen's sprawling eastern Hadramawt province. The explosion was heard in some parts of the city. Al-Qaida's Yemen branch, considered to be the most dangerous offshoot of the terror network, has made gains in the province and captured Mukalla earlier this year. The officials say at least five other militants were wounded in the airstrike. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has engulfed Yemen, and U.S. drones have continued to target top al-Qaida leaders there. AT Retaliation AT: Retaliation Ayson flips neg- terrorism is not an existential risk Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7, Francis & Taylor) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the @257;rst place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in signi@257;cant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-@257;rst century might bring would fade into insigni@257;cance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. No US nuclear retaliation Neely 13 (Meggaen Neely, The George Washington University Master of Arts (M.A.), Security Policy Studies 2012"2014 (expected) Baylor University Master of Arts (M.A.), Public Policy and Administration 2010"2012, Richard D. Huff Distinguished Masters Student in Political Science (2012) Baylor University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science and Government, Research Assistant, Elliott School at George Washington University, Research Intern, Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Communications Intern at Federation of American Scientists Graduate Assistant at Department of Political Science, Baylor University, "Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism", March 21, 2013, http://csis.org...) Because of the difficulty of deterring transnational actors, many deterrence advocates shift the focus to deterring state sponsors of nuclear terrorism. The argument applies whether or not the state intended to assist nuclear terrorists. If terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile materials from a state, the theory goes, then the United States will track the weapon"s country of origin using nuclear forensics, and retaliate against that country. If this is U.S. policy, advocates predict that states will be deterred from assisting terrorists with their nuclear ambitions. Yet, let"s think about the series of events that would play out if a terrorist organization detonated a weapon in the United States. Let"s assume forensics confirmed the weapon"s origin, and let"s assume, for argument"s sake, that country was Pakistan. Would the United States then retaliate with a nuclear strike? If a nuclear attack occurs within the next four years (a reasonable length of time for such predictions concerning current international and domestic politics), it seems unlikely. Why? First, there"s the problem of time. Though nuclear forensics is useful, it takes time to analyze the data and determine the country of origin. Any justified response upon a state sponsor would not be swift. Second, even if the United States proved the country of origin, it would then be difficult to determine that Pakistan willingly and intentionally sponsored nuclear terrorism. If Pakistan did, then nuclear retaliation might be justified. However, if Pakistan did not, nuclear retaliation over unsecured nuclear materials would be a disproportionate response and potentially further detrimental. Should the United States launch a nuclear strike at Pakistan, Islamabad could see this as an initial hostility by the United States, and respond adversely. An obvious choice, given current tensions in South Asia, is for Pakistan to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear launch on its territory by initiating conflict with India, which could turn nuclear and increase the exchanges of nuclear weapons. Hence, it seems more likely that, after the international outrage at a terrorist group"s nuclear detonation, the United States would attempt to stop the bleeding without a nuclear strike. Instead, some choices might include deploying forces to track down those that supported the suicide terrorists that detonated the weapon, pressuring Pakistan to exert its sovereignty over fringe regions such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and increasing the number of drone strikes in Waziristan. Given the initial attack, such measures might understandably seem more of a concession than the retaliation called for by deterrence models, even more so by the American public. This is not an argument against those technologies associated with nuclear forensics. The United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue their development and distribution. Instead, I question the presumed American response that is promulgated by deterrence advocates. By looking at possibilities for a U.S. response to nuclear terrorism, a situation in which we assume that deterrence has failed, we cast doubt on the likelihood of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike and hence cast doubt on the credibility of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike as a deterrent. Would the United States launch a nuclear weapon now unless it was sure of another state"s intentional sponsorship of nuclear terrorism? Any reasonable doubt of sponsorship might stay the United States" nuclear hand. Given the opaqueness of countries" intentions, reasonable doubt over sponsorship is inevitable to some degree. Other countries are probably aware of U.S. hesitance in response to terrorists" use of nuclear weapons. If this thought experiment is true, then the communication required for credible retaliatory strikes under deterrence of nuclear terrorism is missing. The threat of a nuclear retaliation is exaggerated " even stolen material can be easily traced Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) This gloomy picture overstates the difficulty of determining the source of stolen material after a nuclear terrorist attack. In the wake of a detonation, the possibility of stolen fissile material complicates the task of attribution"but only marginally. At the end of the Cold War, several countries"particularly in the former Soviet Union"confronted major nuclear security problems, but great progress has been made since then.40 Although no country has perfect nuclear security, today the greatest concerns surround just five countries: Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa.41 In addition, not all of those states are equally worrisome as potential sources of nuclear theft. Substantial concerns exist about the security of fissile materials in Pakistan and Russia (the latter if simply because of the large size of its stockpile), but Belarus, Japan, and South Africa would likely be quickly and easily ruled out as the source of stolen fissile material. Belarus has a relatively small stockpile of fissile material"approximately 100 kilograms of HEU42"so in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be easy for Belarus to show that its stockpile remained intact.43 Similarly, Japan (one of the United States" closest allies) and South Africa would be keen to allow the United States to verify the integrity of their full stocks of materials. (In the wake of a nuclear terror attack, a lack of full cooperation in showing all materials accounted for would be highly revealing.) Iran is not believed to have any weapons-usable nuclear material to steal,44 although that could change. In short, a nuclear handoff strategy disguised as a loose nukes problem would be very precarious.45 No retaliation " international cooperation and limited suspects solve Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) There are at least five reasons, however, to expect that attributing a nuclear terrorist attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack. First, no terrorism investigation in history has had the resources that would be deployed to investigating the source of a nuclear terror attack"particularly one against the United States or a U.S. ally. Rapidly attributing the attack would be critical, not merely as a first step toward satisfying the rage of the victims but, more importantly, to determine whether additional nuclear attacks were imminent. The victim would use every resource at its disposal" money, threats, and force"to rapidly identify the source of the attack.47 If necessary, any investigation would go on for a long time; it would never "blow over" from the victim"s standpoint. The second reason why attributing a nuclear terror attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack is the level of international assistance the victim would likely receive from allies, neutrals, and even adversaries. An attack on the United States, for example, would likely trigger unprecedented intelligence cooperation from its allies, if for no other reason than the fear that subsequent attacks might target them. Perhaps more important, even adversaries of the United States"particularly those with access to fissile materials"would have enormous incentives to quickly demonstrate their innocence. To avoid being accused of sponsoring or supporting the attack, and thus to avoid the wrath of the United States, these countries would likely go to great lengths to demonstrate that their weapons were accounted for, that their fissile materials had different isotopic properties than the type used in the attack, and that they were sharing any information they had on the attack. The cooperation that the United States received from Iran and Pakistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks illustrates how potential adversaries may be motivated to help in the aftermath of an attack and stay off the target list for retaliation.48 The pressure to cooperate after an anonymous nuclear detonation on U.S. soil would be many times greater.49 Third, the strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities stemming from an attack and the rate of attribution (as depicted in figures 1 to 3 above) suggests that the probability of attribution after a nuclear attack" with its enormous casualties"should be even higher. The 97 percent attribution rate for attacks that killed ten or more people on U.S. soil or that of its allies is based on a set of attacks that were pinpricks compared to nuclear terrorism. The data in those figures suggest that our conclusions understate the actual likelihood of nuclear attribution. Fourth, the challenge of attribution after a terrorist nuclear attack should be easier than after a conventional terrorist attack, because the investigation would begin with a highly restricted suspect list. In the case of a conventional terror attack against the United States or an ally, one might begin the investigation at the broadest level with the U.S. Department of State"s list of fifty-one foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of a nuclear terror attack, only fifteen of these FTOs have state sponsors"and only one sponsor (Pakistan) has either nuclear weapons or fissile materials. (If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that number will grow to two, but there is no overlap between the terror groups that Pakistan supports and those that Iran assists.) Finally, any operation to detonate a nuclear weapon would involve complex planning and coordination"securing the weapon, learning to use it, planning the time and location of detonation, moving the weapon to the target, and conducting the attack. Even if only a small cadre of operatives knew the nuclear nature of the attack, the planning of a spectacular operation would be hard to keep secret.50 For example, six months prior to the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence detected numerous indications that al-Qaida was planning a major attack. The intelligence was not speci fic enough"or the agencies were not nimble enough"to prevent the operation, but the indicators were "blinking red" for months, directing U.S. attention to al-Qaida as soon as the attacks began.51 Turns Case Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance " empirics prove and turns case Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 "Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats" JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts. In previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering. The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse. Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in surveillance and military operations abroad Lennard, Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14 (Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, "'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State" https://news.vice.com..., accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf" category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of networked groups versus lone madman mass killings " a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of terrorism " doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists, are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment. Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the homeland " which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way, attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to madness alone. The assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profile-based counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance " anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day, "You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf" terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national security paranoia. Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack Feaver 1/13/15 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, "10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist Attack," Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com..., 7/16/15, SM) In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were "obvious" in the days and weeks after 9/11, but then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again:W06; Terrorists succeed when they are abetted by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to "succeed," whereas counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to "succeed."W06; Even robust intelligence and law enforcement may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards " certainly by the standards of Western democracies " France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this instance.W06; When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to protect them " even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary. Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do more than is wise. Terrorism leads to crackdowns History.com, Reaction to 9/11, http://www.history.com..., 2010 "Today," the French newspaper Le Monde announced on September 12, 2001, "we are all Americans." People around the world agreed: The terrorist attacks of the previous day had felt like attacks on everyone, everywhere. They provoked an unprecedented expression of shock, horror, solidarity and sympathy for the victims and their families. Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11, and people around the world mourned lost friends and neighbors. They held candlelight vigils. They donated money and goods to the Red Cross and other rescue and relief organizations. Flowers piled up in front of American embassies. Cities and countries commemorated the attacks in a variety of ways: The Queen Mother sang the American national anthem at Buckingham Palace"s Changing of the Guard, while in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro put up huge billboards that showed the city"s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City skyline. Meanwhile, statesmen and women rushed to condemn the attacks and to offer whatever aid they could to the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin called the strikes "a blatant challenge to humanity," while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared that the events were "not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." He added, "We will not let these values be destroyed." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien denounced the "cowardly and depraved assault." He tightened security along the border and arranged for hundreds of grounded airplanes to land at Canadian airports. Even leaders of countries that did not tend to get along terribly well with the American government expressed their sorrow and dismay. The Cuban foreign minister offered airspace and airports to American planes. Chinese and Iranian officials sent their condolences. And the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, visibly dismayed, told reporters in Gaza that the attacks were "unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable." "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack," he said, "and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration." But public reaction was mixed. The leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas announced that "no doubt this is a result of the injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world." Likewise, people in many different countries believed that the attacks were a consequence of America"s cultural hegemony, political meddling in the Middle East and interventionism in world affairs. The Rio billboards hadn"t been up for long before someone defaced them with the slogan "The U.S. is the enemy of peace." Some, especially in Arab countries, openly celebrated the attacks. But most people, even those who believed that the United States was partially or entirely responsible for its own misfortune, still expressed sorrow and anger at the deaths of innocent people. On September 12, the 19 ambassadors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the member nations. This statement of solidarity was mostly symbolic"NATO did not authorize any specific military action"but it was still unprecedented. It was the first time that the organization had ever invoked the mutual defense section of its charter (intended to protect vulnerable European nations from Soviet invasion during the Cold War). NATO eventually sent five airplanes to help keep an eye on American airspace. Likewise, on September 12 the United Nations Security Council called on all nations to "redouble their efforts" to thwart and prosecute terrorists. Two weeks later, it passed another resolution that urged states to "suppress the financing of terrorism" and to aid in any anti-terrorism campaigns. But these declarations of support and solidarity didn"t mean that other countries gave the United States a free hand to retaliate however, and against whomever, it pleased. Allies and adversaries alike urged caution, warning that an indiscriminate or disproportionate reaction could alienate Muslims around the world. In the end, almost 30 nations pledged military support to the United States, and many more offered other kinds of cooperation. Most agreed with George Bush that, after September 11, the fight against terrorism was "the world"s fight." Terrorists Hate US Al Qaeda Al Qaeda is expanding and plotting attacks against the West Hubbard 6/9/2015 (Ben, Al Qaeda Tries a New Tactic to Keep Power: Sharing It, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/middleeast/qaeda-yemen-syria-houthis.html) BEIRUT, Lebanon " After they routed the army in southern Yemen, fighters from Al Qaeda stormed into the city of Al Mukalla, seizing government buildings, releasing jihadists from prison and stealing millions of dollars from the central bank. Then they surprised everyone. Instead of raising their flags and imposing Islamic law, they passed control to a civilian council and gave it a budget to pay salaries, import fuel and hire teams to clean up garbage. The fighters receded into the background, maintaining only a single police station to arbitrate disputes. Al Qaeda"s takeover of Yemen"s fifth-largest city in April was the most direct indication yet that the group"s most potent regional affiliates are evolving after years of American drone strikes killing their leaders and changing to meet the challenge posed by the Islamic State"s competing and land-grabbing model of jihad. While the image of Al Qaeda has long been one of shadowy operatives plotting international attacks from remote hide-outs, its branches in Yemen and Syria are now increasingly making common cause with local groups on the battlefield. In doing so, they are distancing themselves from one of Osama bin Laden"s central precepts: That fighters should focus on the "far enemy" in the West and not get bogged down in local insurgencies. In recent weeks, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has allied with armed tribes to fight Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, putting that alliance on the same side of the country"s civil war as the United States and Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Qaeda-allied fighters are important members of a rebel coalition against President Bashar al-Assad that includes groups supported by the West. This strategy has clear benefits for a group that has long been near the top of the United States"s list of enemies by allowing it to build local support while providing some cover against the threat of foreign military action. But despite Al Qaeda"s increased involvement in local battles, American officials say the group remains committed to attacking the West, a goal that could be easier to plot from sanctuaries where it enjoys local support. Cooperating with others could also give Al Qaeda a long-term advantage in its competition with the extremists of the Islamic State, analysts said. Since its public break with Al Qaeda last year, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has stolen the jihadist limelight by seizing cities in Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate in the territory it controls. This has won it the allegiances of other militant cells from Libya to Afghanistan. The Islamic State has insisted that other groups join it or be considered enemies, a tactic that has alienated many in areas it controls. And its public celebration of violence, including the beheading of Western hostages, helped spur the formation of a United States-led military coalition that is bombing the group. Al Qaeda"s branches in Syria and Yemen have taken a different route, building ties with local groups and refraining from the strict application of Shariah, the legal code of Islam, when faced with local resistance, according to residents of areas where Al Qaeda holds sway. When Al Qaeda took over Al Mukalla in April, it seized government buildings and used trucks to cart off more than $120 million from the central bank, according to the bank"s director, Abdul-Qader Foulihan. That sum could not be independently verified. But it soon passed control to a civilian council, giving it a budget of more than $4 million to provide services, an arrangement that made sense to local officials seeking to serve their people during wartime. "We are not Qaeda stooges," said Abdul-Hakeem bin Mahfood, the council"s secretary general, in a telephone interview. "We formed the council to avoid the destruction of the city." While the council pays salaries and distributes fuel, Al Qaeda maintains a police station to settle disputes, residents said. It has so far made no effort to ban smoking or regulate how women dress. Nor has it called itself Al Qaeda, instead using the name the Sons of Hadhramaut to emphasize its ties to the surrounding province. One self-described Qaeda member said that the choice of name was deliberate, recalling that after the group seized territory in southern Yemen in 2011, the country"s military had mobilized to push it out with support from the United States. "We were in control for a year and six months, we applied God"s law, we created a small state and the whole world saw it, but they did not leave us alone," the man said in an interview with a Yemeni television station. "So we came here with the name the Sons of Hadhramaut, but the people here know who we are." American officials have long considered the terrorist group"s Yemeni branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous to the West. It has sought to carry out attacks against the United States, and it retains sophisticated bomb-making expertise. Now, Yemen"s civil war has given the group an opportunity to expand, analysts said. Can"t deter Al-Qaeda Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") The third type of terrorist who might prove undeterrable were they to acquire these weapons is Al Qaeda itself. Unlike terrorists who serve the liberation claims of a particular group of people, Al Qaeda does not depend for its support on a particular population who could be subjected to revenge or retribution following an attack. Thus the attackers on Afghan soil. Once Afghanistan had served its function as a base, it was dispensable as far as Al Qaeda was concerned. Since their goal is not the acquisition of power itself but the punishment of the United States and its strategic allies, they cannot be stopped by political negotiation, concession, or appeasement. Nor are they susceptible to the incentives that make some armed groups conform to the laws of war in order to achieve international recognition or legitimacy. This indifference to incentives and sanctions applies not merely to Al Qaeda but to any cult with charismatic psychopaths at its head. It is hard to see what political action a state could have taken to deter the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo before it released toxic agents in the Tokyo subway system. 9 Unlike political groups seeking liberation or national territory, these cults cannot be engaged politically, and since they are closed and conspiratorial, they are difficult to infiltrate and neutralize. The logic of deterrence that once kept state violence in some kind of check has no traction with loners and the cult leaders of global terrorism. Since they promise their followers eternal life, they create a cadre of undeterrables. Standard rationality doesn"t apply to Al-Qaeda " they cannot be deterred Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") In the examples considered so far, it has become clear that where armed groups have a real prospect of obtaining recognition and statehood, they may be persuaded to abstain from terrorism. Where their success in this struggle depends on retaining the support of local populations, they may also conclude that restraint pays better than atrocity. But these incentives and restraining factors do not apply to all terrorist groups. No such factors discipline the conduct of Al Qaeda. They have no aspirations to statehood and therefore no incentive to play by any known rules. They do not serve a determinate population and are therefore unconstrained either by their supporters" moral code or by their vulnerability to reprisal. They even appear indifferent to casualties inflicted on Muslim populations who live or work in proximity to their targets. This is what makes them so dangerous. This is also why they cannot be engaged politically and must instead be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda is therefore a distinctive kind of terrorism, no longer in the service of a people"s freedom or in the name of the overthrow of a given state. The apocalyptic nihilists who attacked the United States on September 11 did not leave behind justifications, noble or otherwise, for their actions. They directed their propaganda and their justifications not at a specific state denying a claim to self-determination, but at the United States as the hated imperial capital of a materialistic, secular, and alien civilization. The so-called martyrs defended their actions in the language of Islamic eschatology, not in the language of rights. 33 Moreover, their intentions were apocalyptic, not political: to humiliate the archenemy of Islam and secure martyrdom in the process. It is difficult to see, in principle, how acts unaccompanied by demands can be accommodated politically. If the goal of terrorism is neither territory nor freedom, if its purpose is to strike a blow that asserts the dignity of Muslim believers while inflicting horror and death upon their enemies, then it is difficult to envisage a political response of any kind. Such an attack cannot be met by politics but only by war. Generic Biological realism explains terrorism " means it"s impossible to stop it Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Yet, even if al-Qaida is diminished, Islamic fundamentalist suicide attacks will continue to be executed by al-Qaida-inspired groups, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Taliban because they are an effective asymmetric tactic against some of the world"s most hardened security forces. Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorists have penetrated British, French, Israeli, and U.S. defenses, among others. Moreover, only suicide terrorists could have executed the September 11 attacks or penetrated the Israeli security corridor bordering the Palestinian Authority, because they alone could navigate the countless security obstacles and be capable of self-destructing at a precise location and time while causing the greatest damage. As Mustafa Alani puts it, "It"s what we call a thinking, walking bomb. He watches the whole scene [and] chooses the best time and best location."4 Suicide terrorism is the ultimate smart bomb, demonstrating unparalleled political commitment and personal resoluteness. Scholars have examined Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism primarily through the lens of international politics, economics, and cultural studies, and each offers important insights into the motivation and recruitment policies of groups that practice it. There is, however, another discipline that can make a useful contribution"the life sciences. We argue that the application of concepts and approaches from the life sciences yields new insights into (1) the causal context of Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism, (2) the motivation of suicide terrorists, and (3) policy approaches to subvert this form of terrorism. A consilient approach, incorporating ideas from the life sciences and the social sciences, can aid social scientists and policy analysts in addressing the problem of Islamic suicide terrorism.5 The life sciences can be a source of new analogies and examples that might help scholars and analysts to approach the problem in fresh ways and derive effective policies.6 Our argument is important for three reasons. First, understanding the motivations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is critical for creating policies to stop them, ideally before they become terrorists. Second, our approach helps to illuminate why few Islamic fundamentalist terrorists defect and how policies may be crafted to promote defections. Finally, it advances the goal of consilience"that is, using insights from human evolution and ecology, as well as from the social sciences, to create a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of human behavior. In essence, consilient approaches bridge the gap between the life sciences and the social sciences. For the advancement of knowledge concerning human behavior, there may be no more important task than removing the barriers between the life sciences and the social sciences, which we believe will revolutionize both fields of study.7 The evolutionary structure of terrorist organizations makes them impossible to deter Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Alpha males try to resolve this inevitable tension through male bonding. By persuading non-alpha males that they are all "family," alpha males may be able to dampen intragroup tensions. Evolutionary psychology also helps to explain why this strategy will be effective. Humans evolved in small-group dominance hierarchies"principally the family and extended family hunter groups. Accordingly, the human mind is well suited for comprehending and bonding with small groups of dozens or, at most, 100 or 150 people.24 To be sure, humans may bond with larger units (e.g., a country), but that requires an extensive effort by the state (e.g., years of nationalistic education). In mimicking the family bond, male-bonded groups often assume the task of educating young males, providing another family-like service. Young people often embrace indoctrination into a belief system through a religion or an educational system, or the combination of the two, such as in madrassas.25 Emulating the family also makes the male-bonded group more resilient"harder to penetrate and to destroy"similar to the family or the mafia and suggests they must be targeted in unique ways. The dynamics described above are found among all societies, not only those of the Islamic world. Alpha males will seek to co-opt non-alpha males into male-bonded societies in which violence is controlled by alphas and guided toward out-groups, not in-groups (and especially not targeted toward the alphas). In this study, however, we limit ourselves to examining factors that we argue contribute to Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism. Of course, even within the Islamic world, individuals will possess other motivations to conduct suicide attacks. For example, there is evidence that at least some Iraqi male teenagers have been forced to train as suicide bombers under fear of reprisals against their families. Terrorism"s engrained in Islamic societies " it"s the only way for non-Alpha males to achieve status Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Baldly put, polygyny means mates for some men and none for others. And who will not obtain mates? It will not be those with advantages, but rather those who lack them. Non-alpha males will be the reproductive losers, and this gives them great motivation to use force, the sole area in which they possibly hold a reproductively relevant advantage over alpha males. Alpha males and non-alpha males understand the ramifications of polygyny for their relations: polygyny will heighten in-group violence against alpha males by non-alpha males absent a mechanism that directs this violence to an out-group. From the perspective of alpha males, suicide terrorism offers some interesting possibilities. A non-alpha male in a polygynous society with high levels of gender differentiation wants to find a way to project power, preferably through violence. In this way, he hopes to obtain greater social status and thus greater reproductive success. An alpha male in the same society wants to find a way to channel that violence to out-groups without allowing the nonalpha male to achieve social status through violence, which ultimately could threaten the interests of the alpha males. Suicide terrorism, sanctioned and applauded by religious belief, represents an attractive strategy in this context. If alpha males can persuade non-alpha males that (1) their violence should be directed to out-groups, (2) that thereby these non-alpha males will greatly increase their social status and make their families proud, but (3) they will have to die and experience their reproductive success vicariously through their kin, or in the afterlife, then the threat of in-group violence can be decreased. For some non-alpha males, becoming a shaheed is the most effective response to the human evolutionary conundrum produced by male dominance hierarchies, high levels of gender differentiation, and the scarcity of females resulting from polygyny.40 In 2003 Robert Pape found that among Islamic suicide terrorists, 97 percent were single and 84 percent were male. If one excludes the Kurdistan Workers" Party, which promotes gender equality, the gender ratio rises to 91 percent.41 These young men come predominantly from lower socio-economic strata of society than those involved in nonsuicide terrorism, despite the somewhat anomalous case of the September 11 attacks. Evolutionary psychology would predict that this subpopulation would be most susceptible to the lure of suicide terrorism. Islamic religious texts promise the shaheed seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. 42 Miller and Kanazawa note, "It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivate many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single."43 Failed suicide bombers may not admit to this temptation as motivation for their action, perhaps considering it too vulgar or impious. Nevertheless, it can be a key draw for a male contemplating poor reproductive prospects in this life. In March 2004, Husam Abdu (also Abdo), a sixteen-year-old failed suicide bomber captured at an Israeli checkpoint in Gaza, explained to Israeli intelligence officials that his dwarfism made him the object of ridicule at school, and he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with virgins in paradise. 44 Another captured would-be suicide terrorist, a Moroccan man, aged twenty-six, suffered from facial disfigurement.45 A study of suicide bombers in Iraq conducted by the U.S. military found that they were almost always single males from eighteen to thirty, with a mean age of twenty-two and no children. 46 The study concluded that most are "alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark."47 Immigration DA (WIP) tag Levy 6-3 (Gabrielle, Capitol Hill analyst at US News, "Signs of Life For Immigration Reform," June 3 2015, http://www.usnews.com...) With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. W06; GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.W06; The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation " infuriating Republicans in the process.W06; With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.W06; "If you"re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them" in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.W06; While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.W06; "When it comes to illegal immigration, what"s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. "From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let"s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program."W06; Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It"s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.W06; "If you don"t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen " you"re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans," says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. "So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class."W06; NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)W06; RELATEDW06; Tracing the 2016 Fault LinesW06; Aguilar"s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.W06; A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.W06; "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine," Johnson said. "The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy." |
43 | 3b3189a0-2019-04-18T11:31:50Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | smoking should be banned many things in this world pollute the air and corrupt our children's heath and well being however smoking being so "destructive"is very addictive and time consuming first the world will end someday and when it does i highly doubt it'll be because of cigarette smoker if we ban them all those factory workers and people working for them will be out of jobs and the people who are addicted could potentially go crazy with the crave of needing to smoke soon it will be just like marijuana people will sell it and there are tons of smokers out there its just another reason to put people in jail and for them to pay fines and taxes to the government because of it |
48 | cd585ffb-2019-04-18T19:57:18Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Voting should be mandatory In Australia people of voting age who do not practice their right are fined 75$ (Aus). Should the same sort of thing happen here? I think, the status quo is better. Let me expalin. First of not all the people pay much attention to poltics. When voting, they should not be voting becuase of the cool-sounding names or because they've "always" supported that particualr party, but rather because they are informed and trying to give the government their opinion. Although it would be undemocratic to question their reasons for voting neither should we force people to vote if they really don't care about whats going on and aren't going to pry their eyes away from the TV for less than an hour to go vote. Opponent, its your turn. |
44 | 9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D |
42 | 322867c2-2019-04-18T19:22:55Z-00009-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System The BCS: The Bull Sh*t Championship. Look at any sport, where do computers and peoples opinions play any factor in who wins a championship? The best team is decided on the field, and through a play-off. Look at the MLB, MLL, MLS, NBA, and NHL they all have play-off systems. The NHL, MLB, and NBA all even have play-off systems for their minor leagues teams (NFL, MLL, and MLS don't have minor leagues). Each sports uses their own system, but they all work and at the end no one can doubt that the team that survived the test of the play-offs is not truly the Champion. The BCS has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, because for all the hype and prestige that college football gets: The championship is rigged. When the Magic where facing the Cav's in the Eastern Confrence Finals, everyone wanted to see Kobe/Lebron, Stan Van Gundy (The Magic Coach) angerly replied to reporters on the question of everyone wanting to see those 2 in the finals, "This isn't the BCS where people get to vote [on] who gets to play. This is real sports where it's decided on the court." But WAIT, these are just kids where talking about…poor little college althetes who could in no way stand the tests or pressure of a play-off system. BS, look at NCAA College Football FBS-Subdivision, NCAA College Football D-II, NCAA College Football D-III, NCAAB (D-I, D-II, D-III), NCAABW (D-I, D-II, D-III), College Soccer (Men's and Women's), College Volleyball (Men and Women's), College Baseball, College Softball, College Hockey (Men and Women's), College Lacrosse, and even College Water Polo. Let's even look below college, in all division of High School football in every state of America, and Washington D. C., High School football teams span the rigiourous test of a play-off system to win a state championship (When my high school team won state last year we played in 6 play-off games), also High School Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, and Softball teams all compete in play-offs. When everyone at every level, everywhere is competing in a play-off what's stopping D-I college football? The Plan: Have one 16-team play-off system seed 1 through 16. The winners of each 11 conferences getting an automatic bid (To be determined by the conferences themselves) and 5 at large bids to be determined by a committee similar to the basketball selection committee for the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. The System would see games staged the week after the conclusion of the regular season with the 1 vs. 16 seed, 2 vs. 15 seed and so on. The tournament would be standarded bracketed with the one seed hitting either the 8 or the 9th seed in the second round. The first two round would be played with the lower seed having the home field advantage, where the semi's and final's would be held at neutral sites (Most likely the Rose, Orange, and Fiesta bowl locations). [Please, keep in mind this is only the most ideal and competative format. Their are dozens of other possibilities for a play-off system, I am only suggesting one to fall back on in this debate. Simply because any voters or my challenger disagree with the system I am proposing doesn't mean you should vote against me. You have to see the logic of my analysis based on why we need a play-off system, not which one is perfec] Contention #1- Stuck on an Outdated Bowl System Dan Wetzel may have said it best, when he stated, "Ignore outdated bowls games. BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports." Basically the bowl system works like this: Copurrate sponsors set up and run bowls, make huge profits of advertising and sales while dish some money to the teams participating. I have nothing against using bowl games to celebrate a winning season for a college football team, if anything it's a good reward for having a successful season, But the problem resides in the fact that no one is willing to think outside of the Bowls for any practical solution. The Rose Bowl, and Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl hold so much history in college football to let them slip the way side would just be terrible. Not when the real solution is better. As far as bowl games are concerned: They can remain. As long as teams are eligible and willing to participate in then why not host them? But this must be done con-current with a 16 team play-off system where the best teams compete against each other to produce a champion. Contention #2- The Season Would be TOOOOOO Long Again, I really want to talk to the people that feed America this bull. What if I could tell you that with in a college football play-off the season would be shorter, fewer teams would have to play/practice as long, and thus midigate the risk of injury? Ok, so eight teams would play and extra game, four two, and two three. A relatively small price to pay: a total of seven extra games for over a hundred schools in D-I. And the play-off system could have some sense about it and start the week after the conclusion of the regular season, taking a way the month of practicing and extra workouts coach put their players through because they are play in a bowl game Jan. 7th when the season ended Dec. 3rd. Also conferences, like the Big Ten would not have to play with the severe handi-cap of taking almost 2 months off before playing in a BCS game just because they finished their seasons earlier due to more compact scheduling. People argue that to many kids would miss class with this longer season: 1) I just shortened it 2) Look at these football programs, all of them demand so much time from a student its unrealistic to think they're man focus is on school and not football. If I still haven't convincied you look at this: Due to the way college football runs its clock, there are about 10 percent more plays in a college game than a pro one (135 to 122), which means they're already playing an extra game, game and a half now. Change the clock timing, and boom you shave the number of games being played by almost 50, and then you add 7 extra. That saves 43 games players could get injured in, nice. Contention #3- College Football Would Be Fair How would you like to play in a league, where at the beginning of the season the coach sits your whole team down and says, "Look guys, I don't care if we blow everyone out by 50 points, Go Undefeated, and winner the MAC. The Truth is we can't win a championship this year, because we don't have a 'history' of being good." Why even have teams in a league who can't win? You laugh, and say 'everyone has a fair shot'. Go bring that up with the people from Utah, the only undefeated team in D-I this year, where is their Championship? Or what about Boise state in '07? Or Utah(again) in '02? What happened their? You know what happened, the system is rigged. It is fixed towards the big schools, who will draw the big crowds and get the big rating and consequently make the big bucks for the cooperate sponsor's of the BCS games (Tostitos, FedEx). A play-off system would allow un-bias and fair results by allowing champions of smaller conferences to play with the big boys, and if they lose so what? At least they had their chance, but when they win that would be something else. The magic of the NCAA Basketball tournament resides in the 'Cinderella' run of a huge under-dog. Why not allow that in College Football? Quite simply their is only one solution. College football must change over to a play-off system. If they want to keep their credibility, or even pretend they are a 'real' sport. With die hard competion. Then prove it, what are they scared of? In America we have a system, one system to determine the champion, the best, and that system is a play-off. |
42 | 1758510f-2019-04-18T18:01:59Z-00005-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | hockey vs soccer hockey is better! 1. we are non stop. rarely in a game of hockey do we even stop for "out of bounds". we do not have the option of running out to get a breather. 2. we skate at about 35 mph. go at that speed makes hockey the fastest sport on earth without a car. this is also for about a 2 min. shift. at that speed makes it very hard. also with the possiblilty to get hit makes it even more fun. getting to lay people out with all force and making the crowd scream! 3. scoreing. we shoot a little puck at a little net with a big goalie in the way! for us to score is way more amazing then shotting a big ball in a big net with a little goalie. There for it makes hockey a harder sport and pushs players even more to shoot the puck. heres just 3 main points |
20 | e700e467-2019-04-18T15:48:20Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Eating meat is healthy. I have to extend my previous points as I have nothing further to refute here. I appreciate the debate. |
6 | 83191fe2-2019-04-18T16:45:30Z-00002-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Jesus is not the Messiah I beg to differ that I never explained myself because my opponent admitted that he was clueless about the bible facts posted. I offer 300+ verses that refer to Jesus as Messiah. 324 Messianic Prophecies Gen. 3:15.....He will bruise Satan's head.....Heb. 2:14, 1 Jn. 3:18 Gen. 5:24....The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated....Mk. 6:19 Gen. 9:26,27...The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem...Lu. 3:36 Gen. 12:3...As Abraham's seed, will bless all nations...Acts. 3:25,26 Gen. 12:7...The Promise made to Abraham's Seed...Gal. 3:16 Gen. 14:18...A priest after Melchizedek...Heb. 6:20 Gen. 14:18........A King also........Heb. 7:2 Gen. 14:18...The Last Supper foreshadowed...Mt. 26:26-29 Gen. 17:19.......The Seed of Isaac.......Rom. 9:7 Gen. 22:8...The Lamb of God promised...Jn. 1:29 Gen. 22:18...As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations...Gal. 3:16 Gen.26:2-5..The Seed of Isaac promised as the Redeemer..Heb.11:18 Gen. 49:10...The time of His coming...Lu. 2:1-7; Gal. 4:4 Gen. 49:10.......The Seed of Judah.......Lu. 3:33 300 Prophecies Fulfilled Gen. 49:10......Called Shiloh or One Sent......Jn. 17:3 Gen. 49:10...To come before Judah lost identity...Jn. 11:47-52 Gen. 49:10...To Him shall the obedience of the people be...Jn. 10:16 Ex. 3:13,14........The Great "I Am".......Jn. 4:26 Ex. 12:5...A Lamb without blemish...1 Pet. 1:19 Ex. 12:13...The blood of the Lamb saves from wrath...Rom. 5:8 Ex. 12:21-27...Christ is our Passover...1 Cor. 5;7 Ex. 12:46...Not a bone of the Lamb to be broken...Jn. 19:31-36 Ex. 15:2...His exaltation predicted as Yeshua...Acts 7:55,56 Ex. 15:11...His Character-Holiness...Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27 Ex. 17:6...The Spiritual Rock of Israel...1 Cor. 10;4 Ex. 33:19...His Character-Merciful...Lu. 1:72 Lev.14:11..The leper cleansed-Sign to priesthood..Lu.5:12-14; Acts 6:7 Lev.16:15-17...Prefigures Christ's once-for-all death...Heb. 9:7-14 Lev.16:27...Suffering outside the Camp...Mt. 27:33; Heb. 13:11, 12 Lev.17:11...The Blood-the life of the flesh...Mt. 26;28; Mk. 10:45 Lev.17:11...It is the blood that makes atonement...1 Jn. 3:14-18 Lev.23:36-37...The Drink-offering: "If any man thirst." ..Jn. 19:31-36 Num. 9:12...Not a bone of Him broken...John 19:31-36 Num. 21:9...The serpent on a pole-Christ lifted up...Jn. 3:14-18 Num. 24:17...Time: "I shall see him, but not now."...Gal. 4:4 Deut. 18:15..."This is of a truth that prophet."...Jn. 6:14 Deut. 18:15-16..."Had ye believed Moses, ye would believe me."...Jn. 5:45-47 Deut. 18:18...Sent by the Father to speak His word...Jn. 8:28, 29 Deut. 18:19...Whoever will not hear must bear his sin...Jn. 12:15, Deut. 21:23...Cursed is he that hangs on a tree...Gal. 3:10-13 Ruth 4:4-9...Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed us...Eph. 1:3-7 1 Sam. 2:10...Shall be an anointed King to the Lord...Mt. 28:18; Jn. 12:15 2 Sam. 7:12...David's Seed...Mt. 1:1 2 Sam. 7:14a...The Son of God... Lu. 1:32 2 Sam. 7:16...David's house established forever...Lu. 3:31; Rev. 22:16 2 Ki. 2:11...The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated...Lu. 24:51 1 Chr. 17:11...David's Seed...Mt. 1:1; 9:27 1 Chr. 17:12, 13a...To reign on David's throne forever...Lu. 1:32, 33 1 Chr. 17:13a..."I will be His Father, He...my Son."...Heb. 1:5 Job 19:23-27...The Resurrection predicted...Jn. 5:24-29 Psa. 2:1-3...The enmity of kings foreordained...Acts 4:25-28 Psa. 2:2...To own the title, Anointed (Christ)...Acts 2:36 Ps. 2:6...His Character-Holiness...Jn. 8:46; Rev. 3:7 Ps. 2:6...To own the title King...Mt. 2:2 Ps. 2:7...Declared the Beloved Son...Mt. 3;17 300 Prophecies Fulfilled Psa. 2:7, 8...The Crucifixion and Resurrection intimated...Acts 13:29-33 Psa. 2:12...Life comes through faith in Him...Jn. 20:31 Psa. 8:2...The mouths of babes perfect His praise...Mt. 21:16 Psa. 8:5, 6...His humiliation and exaltation...Lu. 24:50-53; 1 Cor. 15:27 Psa. 16:10...Was not to see corruption...Acts 2:31 Psa. 16:9-11...Was to arise from the dead...Jn. 20:9 Psa. 17;15...The resurrection predicted...Lu. 24:6 Psa. 22:1...Forsaken because of sins of others...2 Cor. 5:21 Psa. 22:1...Words spoken from Calvary, "My God..." Mk. 15:34 Psa. 22:2...Darkness upon Calvary...Mt. 27:45 Psa. 22:7...They shoot out the lip and shake the head...Mt. 27:39 Psa. 22:8.."He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"...Mt. 27:43 Psa. 22:9......Born the Saviour......Lu. 2:7 Psa. 22:14...Died of a broken (ruptured)heart...Jn. 19:34 Psa. 22:14,15...Suffered agony on Calvary...Mk. 15:34-37 Psa. 22:15........He thirsted........Jn. 19:28 Psa. 22:16...They pierced His hands and His feet....Jn. 19:34,37;20:27 Psa. 22:17,18...Stripped Him before the stares of men...Lu. 23:34,35 Psa. 22:18.....They parted His garments.....Jn. 19:23,24 Psa. 22:20,21...He committed Himself to God...Lu.23:46 Psa. 22:20,21..Satanic power bruising the Redeemer's heel..Heb. 2:14 Psa. 22:22.....His Resurrection declared.....Jn. 20:17 Psa. 22:27...He shall be the governor of the nations...Col 1:16 Psa. 22:31......"It is finished"......Jn. 19:30 Psa. 23:1...."I am the Good Shephard"....Jn. 10:11 Psa. 24:3......His exaltation predicted......Acts 1:11; Phil. 2:9 Psa. 30:3......His resurrection predicted......Acts 2:32 Psa. 31:5..."Into thy hands I commit my spirit"...Lu. 23:46 Psa. 31:11...His acquaintances fled from Him...Mk. 14:50 Psa. 31:13...They took counsel to put Him to death...Jn. 11:53 Psa. 31:14,15..." He trusted in God, let Him deliver him"...Mt. 27:43 Psa. 34:20.....Not a bone of Him broken.....Jn 19:31-36 Psa. 35:11....False witnesses rose up against Him....Mt. 26:59 Psa. 35:19...He was hated without a cause...Jn. 15:25 Psa. 38:11.....His friends stood afar off.....Lu. 23:49 Psa. 40:2-5...The joy of His resurrection predicted...Jn. 20:20 Psa. 40:6-8....His delight-the will of the Father....Jn. 4:34 Psa. 40:9....He was to preach the Righteousness in Israel....Mt. 4:17 Psa. 40:14...Confronted by adversaries in the Garden...Jn. 18:4-6 Psa. 41:9.....Betrayed by a familiar friend.....Jn. 13:18 Psa. 45:2...Words of Grace come from His lips...Lu. 4:22 300 Prophecies Fulfilled Psa. 45:6...To own the title, God or Elohim...Heb. 1:8 Psa. 45:7...A special anointing by the Holy Spirit...Mt.3:16; Heb.1:9 Psa. 45:7,8...Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed)...Lu. 2:11 Psa. 55:12-14...Betrayed by a friend, not an enemy...Jn. 13:18 Psa. 55:15...Unrepentant death of the Betrayer...Mt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19 Psa. 68:18...To give gifts to men...Eph. 4:7-16 Psa. 68:18...Ascended into Heaven...Lu. 24:51 Psa. 69:4...Hated without a cause...Jn. 15:25 Psa. 69:8...A stranger to own brethren...Lu. 8;20,21 Psa. 69:9...Zealous for the Lord's House...Jn. 2:17 Psa. 69:14-20...Messiah's anguish of soul before crucifixion...Mt. 26:36-45 Psa. 69:20..."My soul is exceeding sorrowful."...Mt. 26:38 Psa. 69:21...Given vinegar in thirst...Mt. 27:34 Psa. 69:26...The Saviour given and smitten by God...Jn. 17:4; 18:11 Psa. 72:10,11...Great persons were to visit Him...Mt. 2:1-11 Psa. 72:16...The corn of wheat to fall into the Ground...Jn. 12:24 Psa. 72:17...His name, Yinon, will produce offspring...Jn. 1:12,13 Psa. 72:17...All nations shall be blessed by Him...Acts 2:11,12,41 Psa. 78:1.2...He would teach in parables...Mt. 13:34-35 https://www.google.com... Fulfilling my shared burden of proof when my opponent offered nothing. https://www.google.com... |
43 | 1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Dogs>Cats CAT STDS BITCh http://wtvr.com... GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL G |
40 | e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00006-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Debater's Choice Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty, |
37 | 53b7edd-2019-04-18T15:25:15Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. Environmental effects of non-renewable sources I do not contend against the fact that coal and oil have contributed to global warming and cause pollution, as it is true. However, I do contend that nuclear energy is not as harmful as Pro has claimed, and that so-called "renewable" energy can be environmentally unfriendly as well. Various companies in the solar panel industry have created tens of millions of pounds of hazardous waste from creating solar panels [1]. Geothermal energy produces CO2 emissions as well [1]. All renewable sources have effects on nearby wildlife, such as wind turbines killing birds and dams destroying wildlife reserves [1]. I do not claim these environmental effects are worse than those of oil and coal, however, it should be considered that renewable sources are not perfect either. It is true that people in nuclear plants are exposed to radiation. What is failed to be taken in account, however, is the fact that a minimum of 100.00 mSv of radiation is required for there to be an observable increase in cancer. Even then, an exposure to 1000.00 mSv of radiation was necessary before it was observed that 5% of people contracted cancer in later years [2]. Even the radiation around Fukushima was only around 400.00 mSv- a normal nuclear plant will not be harmful. It is true that accidents can happen, but in general all are the result of poor design and maintenance, which can be easily mitigated by proper caution. In the past sixty years, there's only been around thirty accidents, and most of them were low on the lower half of the nuclear accident scale [3]. The waste from nuclear plants is an issue, but can be mitigated by a shift to thorium plants, that produce less hazardous waste, and its hazardous waste cannot be use to forge weapons [4]. Viability of renewable sources All renewable sources are very location specific, in particular geothermal and hyrdro- a relatively small number of sites around the world have the potential to provide energy of that form. Nowhere in the study Pro cites about geothermal energy is it claimed that geothermal energy could power the world- only that it could provide some amount of energy. In fact, for example, looking at a geothermal resource map of the US, it can be seen that only the West Coast in general can easily host geothermal plants [5]. Solar power is also harmful to existing electrical grids, overloading them due to overproduction during daytime [6]. And during nighttime, when electricity is most needed, solar power is unavailable, due to the fact that it has not been possible to create an economically-viable, efficient battery to store solar energy- salt-based storage only has less than 20% efficiency [7], The same problem lies with wind power, which is just as difficult to store on a large scale. There are certainly other batteries available, but they are terrible expensive (around $1000/kWh, when the average fridge uses 5 kWh a day for comparison) [8]. Even if a economically-viable, efficient storage system was created, however, its very existence would mean that "renewable" energy would be reliant on environmentally-unfriendly non-renewable substances. The biggest problem with solar and wind is storing it. On an economic level, renewable sources of energy are generally non-viable compared to non-renewable sources, as non-renewable sources often provide much more energy for a lower cost [9]. Thus in all, at the moment, renewable sources are unfortunately non-viable as a replacement for non-renewable sources. Thanks for having me. Back to you now. [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5]http://www.nrel.gov... [6] http://www.theaustralian.com.au... [7] http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org... [8] http://www.businessinsider.com... [9] http://www.forbes.com... |
41 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00000-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no "averaging" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, "running back home." That hurts us all." Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree." Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are "learning to live on your own gradually and constructively." I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that "you're also getting an education," but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your "network," which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it. |
1 | d23aca82-2019-04-18T16:11:12Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers should have guns What if these security guards were shot? Plus you would have to pay for security guards |
21 | fde913a8-2019-04-18T19:39:14Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | globel warming is the result of human activity The subject being "Global Warming is the result of Human Activity" Also known as Man-Made Global Warming I have fought this belief in a previous debate and it only seems fit to me to use the same opening argument. So begins the debate, thank you Rune for the subject and thank you readers for viewing my points. The earth is warming up... DUH! but why is the earth warming? my goal in this debate it to fight off the common theory that we are the couse of Global Warming. Global warming is a corner stone issue with many news media programs, as well as a corner stone issue for the democratic party. I had the privilege of talking to a scientist who testified as well as 6 others in front of congress. He says, and i quote "The largest production of Carbon Dioxide in the world isn't even close to use, its in the ocean, its plankton." He also told me that we have very little if any effect on the worlds climate. he says that the second largest production comes from south America in the rain forest (in which he spent 10 years in studying). He says that the trees in the rain forest store carbon dioxide for hard times when they need energy, when the hard times don't come and the tree is fully grown they let out the carbon dioxide. My first statement is that we have little effect on our environment. |
43 | ffd3138a-2019-04-18T16:03:25Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students Of course we have age restrictions to protect children from adults or to prevent them from engaging in activities including restrictions on purchasing alcohol and cigarettes. But these and virtually every instance, anyone can clearly see the connection, the reason behind the law. The drinking age 21 exists because alcohol is a dangerous substance that often results in death, car accidents, violence, and in general it has a negative effect"with the exception of people who claim to drink one glass of red wine every evening. Smoking too, the reason is clear why we restrict those 18 and younger because a clear link binds consumption and harm. Smoking has zero benefits to the individual smoker and causes cancer and many other medical problems. We set this limit because there is not a single doctor or peer-reviewed study suggesting that heavy daily consumption of either of these products has any benefits to anyone. Moreover, I do not and do not believe anyone should take seriously the idea that the law or legal system or policies in general worry about the welfare of children in society. Recently Human Rights Watched published a report on children working on tobacco farms in several states, the report: [1] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 138-page report, "Tobacco"s Hidden Children: Hazardous Child Labor in US Tobacco Farming," documents conditions for children working on tobacco farms in four states where 90 percent of US tobacco is grown: North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Children reported vomiting, nausea, headaches, and dizziness while working on tobacco farms, all symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning. Many also said they worked long hours without overtime pay, often in extreme heat without shade or sufficient breaks, and wore no, or inadequate, protective gear. "". Many of the pesticides used in tobacco production are known neurotoxins, poisons that alter the nervous system. The long-term effects of childhood pesticide exposure can include cancer, problems with learning and cognition, and reproductive health issues.Children are especially vulnerable because their bodies and brains are still developing.Human Rights Watch sent letters to 10 US and global tobacco companies and met with many of them to encourage these companies to adopt policies, or strengthen existing policies, to prevent hazardous child labor in their supply chains. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also they is a long, well documented history of treating black. Here is again, another thorough report by Human Rights Watch of black teens being tried as adults for nonviolent crimes that resulted in long sentences. Here is a great paragraph that illustrates my earlier point: "The children caught up in the "direct file" law cannot legally vote, drink, or buy cigarettes in the state of Florida," said Alba Morales, a US researcher at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report. "Yet they can be tried as adults with no judge evaluating that decision, and branded as felons for life." [2] _____________________________________________________________________________ Now let me move on to an amazing case. This time the "criminal" in question is Debra Lafave. Police records report that Lafave had performed oral sex on the boy on June 3rd, and had sexual intercourse with the him in a portable classroom at her school nine days later. Lafave, who worked before college as a model in auto magazines such as Makes and Models".[4] What is the crime here? Where is the harm? Why should we prosecute these women? What are we punishing? In reality what crime or harm has this great, dedicated teacher done? Maybe aggravated assault on the penis? Physical abuse due to aggressive use of tongue, mouth, oiled hand, oiled-breast? Maybe you could make a case for intent to kill by way of excessive pleasure but strikes me as a hard case to make. I noticed someone mentioned in the comments section about the law makes no distinction between persons. Apart from this never being the case, including these cases where the women usually receive little or zero jail time, and men who do the same with female students almost always receive at a minimum a year in jail, I think it is illogical to make the case male and female sexual behavior is comparable. I could be wrong, my opponent may be able to provide me with thorough reports on all the females raping males around the country, or all the sexual crimes and unwanted harassment that vulnerable men experience all the time. My argument exists also in television form: "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy" is the tenth episode of season 10 of Comedy Central's South Park. It originally aired on October 18, 2006. My final thoughts: There is not a link or clear evidence or a logical argument to support the notion that women like Debra Lafave, an auto magazine model cause harm or should be prosecuted for crimes, given that "crime" in these instances means a tongue-bath of the private by an attractive woman. These laws are unjust because of the absence of a crime. What my opponent will need to show is the harm caused by Ms. Lafave, the Makes and Models model, who willing modeled a student"s penis in her mouth. Show me the crime. [1] http://www.hrw.org... [Here is a link to a Huffington Post story along with a segment from the Daily Show] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.hrw.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... Someone mentioned in the comments section the law cannot be subjective, which as we know from the colonial period to day was the case. If that is true here is the completely non-subjective history of US legal Slaves, indentured servants, women, Indians received fair treatment under the law Children, especially those of marginalized groups were treated with respect and dignity Women were allowed to own and sale property It was illegal for men to beat their wife Women gained the right to vote and participate in politics The Japanese internment during WWII never happened Native Americans own several large swaths based on treaties signed and ratified by the US congress and president After the Civil War, Africans Americans were treated equally under the law with respect to persons After 9/11 not a single case exist were Muslims were unfairly treated and legislation was never passed to directly target them |
35 | b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00004-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. I've been meaning to explore some things that coincide with my arguments and this is a great opportunity to do so. TRAINED TO KILL I'll explain this more as I go along, but the fact is kids are being trained to kill. Everyday they are on their video games simulating acts of murder over and over. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto all these games work to desensitize kids to violence and murder. It infects their brain and they lose their conscience. I hope by the end of this debate, I've convinced a lot of people to expose themselves and children to these violent forms of media significantly less. NOT BORN TO KILL Humans despite being a violent species are disgusted with violence. They can't bring themselves to kill people. Experts say that in World War 2 when solders would get within killing range of an enemy combatant only 1 in 5 would take the necessary shot. According to Army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall this has nothing to do with cowardice. Soldiers would still do feats of heroics, but just have a repulsion towards murder. Recovered muskets from the civil war showed that 90% were fully loaded. This means most of those simply weren't fired. Soldiers were pretending to shoot at the enemy. In the 1960s law enforcement was shown to have a similar problem. Cops just weren't shooting at suspects even when civilian lives were in danger. Psychologists stepped in to help the government create more efficient killers. How did they do it? Well look at a quote from the article this whole section is sourced from. "Target practice on hollowed cabbages filled with ketchup to mimic the way a bullet rips open a human head. Marching to chants of "kill, kill, kill. " Video game simulations that reward points for every successful "shot. " These are among hundreds of techniques that experts say can recondition the human brain. " That's right. The government uses video games to desensitize soldiers to acts violence, so killing becomes more palatable. This stuff actually worked. By the time Vietnam rolled around the kill rate was at 90% and is likely even higher now. The kill rate jumping from 20% to 90% in military operations aided by violent video games meant to desensitize people clearly fulfills my portion of the BOP, but let's take it a step further. . http://m.sfgate.com... DESENSITIZE ME It's not so much Video games being directly responsible for real world violence so much as violent video games being a major contributing factor. The more kids play violent video games the more they become desensitized to violence and the less empathy they have for victims of violence. . http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net... It's simple. The more you see violent images, the less it bothers you to see violent images. This desensitization makes it easier to either commit violent actions or to stand by and do nothing when violent acts are being committed. So it contributes in 2 major ways. I'm not the only one that sees this connection between violent video games and real world violence. "In fact the surgeon general, the National Institute of Mental Health and multiple professional organizations " including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association " all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence. " . http://mobile.nytimes.com... I'm not saying that an individual that plays violent video games is going to be violent, but it certainly increases their chance of becoming violent, which in turn has a huge real world effect when taking into account how many people are exposed to this desensitization. In one recent study over 30 people were exposed to different images before playing a game where they could harm their opponent by blasts of sound. The people exposed to the most violent images, were far more likely to punish their opponent more than the ones not exposed to them. . http://videogames.procon.org... DR. BRUCE Dr. Bruce Perry an expert brain development in children provides a useful list of things that contribute to kids becoming violent scholastic. com z His first cause directly blames desensitization to violence as a result of violent media (aka video games). Number 2 is becoming detached from people which could also be a result of playing violent games too much. His number 5 reason is because we are becoming more practiced at killing and specifically mentions violent video games as helping with the practice. . http://teacher.scholastic.com... If you think that video games aren't good at teaching anything check out this article. . http://www.wired.com... A man actually saves a life from the practice he got on a military recruiting game called America's Army. FACT OR FICTION According to psychologists, up to 25% of the population can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. . http://healthland.time.com... Maybe on an intellectual level they can, but these violent games are desensitizing them worse than anybody else. These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed. Violent video are a major contributor to real world violence. CONCLUSION I'll post my rebuttals next rebound and anxiously await my opponent's arguments. |
2 | c5c7b5c5-2019-04-18T13:27:00Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Cigarettes should be banned from society Cigarettes should not receive a complete, immediate ban from society. I would like to scope this argument to the entirety of Australia, and define the topic as a complete ban of cigarettes. Meaning all use and possession of cigarettes will result in a heavy fine and possible community service and jail time. As the negative speaker I strongly disagree with this and believe that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban from society. I also believe that the effects of a complete ban of cigarettes will increase the level of crime in Australia, as well as create an additional struggle on the economy from the importation of the substance. The complete ban of cigarettes also will create another band of drug crime, and the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes will become unsafe as no standard amounts of nicotine or other chemicals will be controlled by regulations, such occurrences have repeatedly been recorded across other drug crime including that of cannabis and illegally manufactured supplements. However I believe that cigarettes should become more controlled in the factory process and use of cigarettes. This means there will be increased government promotion of e-cigarettes as a temporary alternative, and the ban of the use of cigarettes in all public places, as well as an increase taxation and a differing, safer formula in smokes overtime. I also believe that the job is not to completely ban cigarettes, but instead change and regulate the manufacturing process so a decrease in harmful substances and nicotine in each cigarette to create a controlled smoking environment that will assist in the deduction of smokers. I also feel those whom have placed 'cigarette user' on their medical records should receive an increase in mandatory checkups to maintain knowledge of possible diseases and to advertise counseling for cigarette users. I agree that cigarettes are an unhealthy way of life that circulates through families as a part of society, but I also believe that banning of dangerous substances in the past has led to an increase in long term effects and a complete, immediate ban is not a safe option. Cigarettes should not receive an complete, immediate ban from society. Thank you. |
17 | 1d872123-2019-04-18T16:38:07Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal in the United States I believe that Marijuana should not be legal in the United States or even be considered to become legal. I believe Marijuana should not be legal for two reasons. One reason is that there are too many long term effects of Marijuana. Another reason is that if you legalize Marijuana and try to illegalize it, it would be too hard to do. I would like to set some ground rules: 1.) Support your reason with facts for evidence 2.) No opinions are allowed |
4 | 1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00015-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced it makes a direct link between a behavior and its bad consequences |
19 | c015ffd5-2019-04-18T18:13:51Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal in the United States "My opponent's quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect. He also says that "While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution." The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it."My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim. I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal. Since the federal government does not ban gay marriage, gay marriage is thus legal in the United States; the government does not have to write up a law for everything to say that it is legal when it already is; the government does, however, have to do this to make something illegal. My opponent now has the responsibility to not only refute my claim, but he also must provide reasoning or evidence for his claim gay marriage can be neither legal or illegal on the federal level. "I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true."Allow me to elaborate further then. From the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia:"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." [1]Now, I shall refer to my opponent's definition of marriage that I accepted at the beginning of the debate: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other." Under this definition, gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right. I shall argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, but first, I shall address another one of Con's points."Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" [1].This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states."The Defense of Marriage Act has not been tested for constitutionality in the United States Supreme Court, and thus, it remains law. This debate, however, is not a question of whether or not gay marriage can be legal in the United States, but rather, whether or not it should be legal. Should was already defined as "used to express obligation or duty." In this use of the word, can is defined as "be able to." [2] The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman. According to my understanding of it, the entirety of my opponent's response to my argument, which makes up most of his argument, hinges on the fact that states can define marriage as they wish, under a few restrictions, none of which includes the guarantee that the states have to define marriage to include gay marriage. Thus, the states do not have to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as they do heterosexual couples, nor do they have to provide the right to marry to homosexual couples in the first place, because even though marriage is a civil right, as long as the definition of marriage does not include gay marriage, then gay marriage is not a civil right. Overall, his argument hinges on the fact that the states do not have to define marriage to include homosexual marriage. Con can correct me if I am mistaken with my understanding of his arguments. This means my only rational response to this argument would be to argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage. Now, there is little legal precedent or standing for this on a federal basis, and state basis varies, and thus, I will simply use reasoning and rational thinking as opposed to relying on legal documents, which my opponent and I have used throughout this debate. Nonetheless, if my argument, which is that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, is successful, and my opponent's refutations are unsuccessful, then gay marriage should be legal in the United States, because marriage is a civil right that the states already provide for heterosexual couples.To begin my argument as to why gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, I shall say that marriage is not necessarily naturally between one man and one woman; in other words, my opponent has to provide reasoning for the claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as I have to provide reasoning that marriage can include homosexual couples. Evidence for the notion that marriage may not just be between heterosexuals is shown throughout history. Same sex marriages have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and even a few examples in Middle Ages European secular law. [3]As for rational reasons to include gay marriage in the definition of marriage, some examples are: it would allow gay couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; it does not hurt society or anyone in particular; marriage is also a matter of love, and this allows homosexual couples another way to express their love; marriage would encourage family values amongst homosexual couples in the same way marriage encourages family values amongst heterosexual couples; it would encourage child adoption amongst homosexual couples, giving more children stable homes where the parents are in a social contract to stay together. This is the end of my argument for round three, and although I do have more to say and argue, I cannot fit in for space reasons, mainly because at this point I have one last thing I need to address, which is addressed below this paragraph. "Question: If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?" The question shall be ignored until my opponent provides reasoning as to why it is relevant to the debate. The debate is about whether or not gay marriage is legal. Although arguing gay marriage as a civil right may be necessary for my side of the debate, and arguing that it is not a civil right may be necessary for my opponent's side of the debate, arguing polygamy as a civil right or not a civil right is irrelevant as to whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I see the question by Con as an attempt to draw away from the main topic of the debate, and readers should take this in mind when determining the conduct of the two debaters. I am not at fault from drawing attention away from the debate in this instance because I am simply addressing a question asked of me as opposed to asking one myself. Likewise, my opponent shall not be at fault if he tries to explain why this question is relevant to the debate; if he fails to do this, however, this question should be a factor when determining his conduct in the debate. [1] http://tiny.cc... [2] http://tiny.cc...[3] http://tiny.cc... |
35 | d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00005-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | should vilent video games be banned It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. "In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. " [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: "It's clear that the 'big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. " [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. "According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. " [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop " from the repetition of actions ", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. " Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. " [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. "The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. " [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] "97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. " [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org... |
13 | f1a21e31-2019-04-18T19:40:41Z-00004-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Please bear with me; this is my first-ever debate. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for his provocative and poignant choice of debate topic. And now, for my first-ever argument... Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. I. Alternative energy research and development is already happening at some levels within the Federal Government. a. The United States Air Force, the largest consumer of energy in the Federal Government, is already working on its own alternative energy initiative to help it reduce its dependency on foreign oil. -The plan also mandates tie-ins with the domestic aviation industry, domestic sourcing of fuel, and production on an industrial scale. -These mandates are a direct boost to American industry and aviation. -Domestic sourcing of fuel helps prevent the military from being in the position of having their fuel supply cut off by a foreign nation or nations. (1) II. America's current approach involves letting the states and private industry lead the way in alternative energy source development and conservation. a. There is no national coordination of state efforts, and private sector leadership has proven limited over the past 35 years. b. The result is that the United States has among the highest energy usage per capita on earth and is a massive net importer of energy.(2) c. For instance, although there are Federal solar-power initiatives, the most prominent ones are at the state level, and the states do not coordinate their policies as well as they could. III. America's allies/economic competitors have national energy policies to some extent, have had them for quite some time, and all have achieved success in reducing their dependence on oil.(2) a. Australia, Canada, and Mexico are actually energy self-sufficient. b. The United Kingdom, starting in 1973 in the wake of the oil shock, used grants, loans, tax incentives, and conservation to reduce its demand for energy by 6% in nine years. Although the UK is not self-sufficient, it ranks with Italy as the most efficient users of energy in the developed world. c. Canada made short-term, medium-term, and long term plans to develop indigenous alternative energy sources in response to the oil shock of 1973. - Their solution involved tax incentives, conversion of industrial waste to energy, and use of the forest biomass as an alternative energy source. - Today Canada is fossil-fuel self-sufficient. d. Sweden created a national energy policy in 1975 in response to the oil shock of 1973. Sweden's plan involved a mix of conservation, low-cost loans, grants and tax disincentives to push its industry to use alternative energy sources. e. Finland began researching its energy use in partnership with its private sector in 1980, and completed its report in 1982. Finland also enacted conservation measures. f. France's national strategy involves conservation, use of indigenous resources, and diversification of energy sources. - The private sector can take advantage of low-cost government loans to convert to plants that take advantage of alternative energy sources. g. Greece enforced a national conservation act in 1980 and mandated that industry spend a percentage of their capital investment on making their facilities more efficient. In 1982, Greece made a grant available for companies that wished to switch to alternative energy sources. IV. When there is a pressing national goal, the Federal Government actually has a solid track record in delivering nationwide solutions. a. It is currently fashionable to downplay the competence and success of the Federal Government and to play up the competence and success of private industry. This has been in vogue since the Reagan Administration. Although it is true that the Federal Government can produce shining moments of incompetence like the response to Hurricane Katrina and the government shutdowns of the 1990s, the fact is that when the country is united and is pulling in one direction, the Federal Government can deliver success in its programs. b. When Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan posed a threat to the United States, the US military under the command of the Federal Government was able to deal with the threat in a way that private industry alone or the states alone simply could not. c. The Federal Government successfully built and maintained the Federal Highway system when it became evident that goods and services needed to flow through the country more efficiently. d. The Federal Government successfully put a man on the moon, and the spinoff products from that triumph are still helping society today. e. The Federal Governmemt needed a way to maintain communications between parts of the country during an emergency, and it created DARPA which became the World Wide Web. f. The Federal Government delivered the Social Security program, helping countless millions of people, and its finances are still solid today. g. The Federal Government successfully pursued the Cold War and rolled back Communism, and successfully administered the Marshall Plan which saved Western Europe. A nationwide alternative energy push with as much fanfare and national support as the Space Race or the Berlin Airlift could prove successful here as it has in Britain, France, Canada, Greece, and elsewhere. V. More reliance on US-based alternative energy sources will result in immediate, tangible benefits: a. The US can reduce its exposure to troubled parts of the world. -We can reduce foreign entanglements if we are not addicted to the oil that comes largely from far-flung regions of the world like Central Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. -The US military would be freed from some foreign adventures. The United States is involved in Afghanistan to secure a gas pipeline(4)(5)(6). The United States is in Iraq to secure a source of oil, at least according to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan (7). The resources spent fighting in these two countries to secure energy sources could be spent more wisely back home if there were a national alternative energy policy that focused on the resources found here in the United States. -The US may finally reach a point where it is a net energy exporter, and then countries will pay the US for energy instead of the other way around. b. The search for indigenous, alternative energy sources can be an engine for growth. The incentives may spur public and private development of workable solutions and create jobs for Americans in the process, as the space program put many engineers to work for years. Although there are substantial state and local-level programs in place as well as private sector programs in place, these have proven not up to the task of freeing the nation from its costly dependence on foreign energy sources. The problem is of a nationwide scope, and the solution should be designed and implemented on a nationwide level as only the Federal Government can do. This dependence is drawing the US military into places it should not be, and is weakening the United States financially. There are several examples around the world of nations who have increased alternative energy incentives and combined these with conservation and have achieved success. Doing so can create jobs in the US, increase American energy independence, and remove the need to patrol foreign territory and engage in foreign wars to ensure American energy sources. In conclusion, The United States should combine searching for indigenous, renewable forms of energy and conservation as part of a Federal-level national strategy to strengthen the United States on many levels. Thank you for your time. |
33 | 7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Should People Become Vegetarian Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that. |
37 | 26d40999-2019-04-18T18:23:26Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. I will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults."http://www.theblaze.com..."Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use"http://www.mobiledia.com..."One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones."http://news.yahoo.com..."350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone "subscribers" and those who didn't have a phone,"http://health.usnews.com..."to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer."http://www.cancer.gov..."The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors"http://gizmodo.com..."It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit "non-ionizing radiation" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain"http://www.itwire.com..."Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer."http://www.bbc.co.uk..."In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls."http://www.cancer.org..."A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones."http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com..."Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer"http://www.usaweekend.com...-"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer. |
4 | f788467e-2019-04-18T15:05:59Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Discipline should be instilled by parents not school. Ruptured eardrums, brain damage and other bodily injuries and death in some instances are some of the bad and tragic effects of corporal punishment. While the physical damage done to the body can be treated, the emotional and psychological effects can affect the survivor deeply. Corporal punishment is the hitting of a person with a hand or an object such as a cane or belt. It is also kicking, burning, shaking or throwing of a person with the intention of inflicting pain on them. Pinching or pulling the hair, forcing one to sit in uncomfortable or undignified positions, or forcing one to take excessive physical exercise as a way of disciplining them is tantamount to corporal punishment. Although prohibited by law in Zambia as a way of disciplining children in schools, corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and by parents in homes. This is because no measures have been taken to ensure that legislation is implemented and the behaviour of perpetrators changed. Corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and parents as reflected in a qualitative and quantitative survey of 2,705 boys and girls aged between six and 18 years. The objective of the survey was to explore a diversity of experiences; views and feelings related to corporal punishment and other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment of children. It was also intended to estimate the levels of corporal punishment in schools and homes in the country. The study looked at corporal and humiliating and degrading punishment of children over a period of two weeks. It was conducted in 2005 in all the nine provinces of Zambia by the Zambia Civic Education Association and commissioned by Save The Children Sweden. According to the survey, corporal punishment and other forms of degrading and humiliating punishment are still widely practised in Zambia both at school and at home. Children are often hit with a hand, a stick or hosepipe in schools when they do wrong. At home they are hit with sticks, belts, hands and in some cases denied food. Some parents and child tenders alike practise corporal punishment because of the belief that children do not grow to be well-mannered adults if they are not spanked or beaten when they make mistakes. Some even say that abolishing corporal punishment is a Western-centric concept that will cause havoc in African cultures and lead to moral decay. The study also established that corporal punishment is more pronounced in low-income environments than in affluent communities. This can be attributed to poverty and its effects like stress and high illiteracy levels in these communities. Such factors tend to have an effect on how adults discipline children. Whatever reasons, parents and teachers and indeed other care-givers may have to justify corporal punishment as a form of child discipline. It should be noted that its effects on survivors are damaging. According to Father Derrick Mewing, an assistant priest at the Anglican Cathedral of The Holy Cross Lusaka, corporal punishment only induces fear and distorts reasoning. "Beating or treating children in a degrading manner are ineffective ways of disciplining them because they only save as quick fixes that are detrimental to a child and do not provide a lasting solution to a problem. In schools for instance, teachers should tell pupils the benefits of possessing a good character coupled with good academic performance and also the consequences of one not possessing them. This approach installs a sense of responsibility in them. On the other hand corporal punishment induces fear and distorts reasoning. Fr Mewing asserted: "Children need discipline but they need to learn self-discipline. There is need to encourage non-violent and non-humiliating ways of instilling discipline in them." Corporal punishment does not help a child to develop into an adult with self-discipline and respect for other people. Instead, it distorts sound judgement and creates anti-social behaviours. Fr Mewing further asserted that some people have taken biblical scriptures literally. He cited Proverbs 11: 7, which says "spare the rod and spoil the child." According to Fr Mewing, the portion of the scripture in question does not literally mean what most people perceive it to entail "This does not literally mean what it has generally been perceived to mean. In this case the rod is the code of conduct. The psalmist says, Thy rod and thy stuff they comfort me. How can something comfort and cause you pain at the same time? The rod referred to in the Bible is the code of conduct that is meant to guide and instruct one in the right path for them to have a disciplined and fulfilling life, Fr Mewing said. And according to the same study, corporal punishment is used more frequently on younger children (6-12 years) than on older children (13-18 years). Older children experience humiliating and degrading treatment to a larger extent. There was also a small but consistent trend for boys to be subjected to corporal punishment while older girls experienced humiliating and degrading punishment in the form of verbal abuse to a larger extent. Corporal punishment works against the process of ethical development. It teaches children not to engage in a particular behaviour because they risk being beaten. But it does not teach them the reasons and ethics for not behaving in a particular manner. It is said that violence breeds violence. The use of corporal punishment on children contributes to a perception from an early age that violence is an appropriate response to conflict resolution and unwanted behaviour. It teaches them that it is acceptable for powerful persons to be violent towards the weak and to resolve conflicts through violence. The escalating levels of gender violence especially against women and children are evidence of this archaic and despicable method of disciplining young people. Children exposed to non-peaceful ways of conflict resolution often become perpetrators of gender violence in their adulthood. Exposing children to violence can make them potential perpetrators of such vices later in life. Notwithstanding its devastating effects on survivors and society at large, it is disheartening to note that less than 20 countries globally have adopted legislation to prohibit corporal punishment of children. Some countries have even outlawed corporal punishment of children in schools and other institutions. Corporal punishment violates human rights to physical integrity and human dignity, as upheld by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, as well as the Zambian Constitution. Often times, children are viewed as second-class humans, but they are as much entitled to their equal enjoyment of rights just as adults. For some reasons, corporal punishment of children has not been given the seriousness it deserves. This has caused a lot of children to suffer silently. Children too have the right to be heard. But more often than not, society does not want to accord them the opportunity to do so. This is because adults tend to think that children are incapable of reasoning and hence cannot be consulted even on issues concerning them. Given a choice, children would prefer to be disciplined in non-violent and non-humiliating ways. According to the same study, approximately 70 per cent of the children found corporal punishment in the home and at school unacceptable. Their sentiment was the same for humiliating punishment, which approximately found 79 per cent unacceptable as evidenced by the study that showed 75 per cent of the children were against corporal punishment. The children said that the practice is harmful both physically and emotionally and that it induces fear in them and thereby reduces their concentration. The majority of children said that they would prefer parents and teachers to talk to them and explain what they did wrong instead of beating them or using other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment as a way of disciplining them. Given the children's response, it can be said therefore that children would prefer to be treated with respect just like everyone else. Thus, to have adults listen to them and to be given a better understating of what they have done wrong instead of rushing into beating or treating them inhumanely. However, eleven per cent of the children preferred corporal punishment when being disciplined. This option was more favoured by children from low-income environments. A possible sad explanation to this perception could be that these children live in environments where violent forms of discipline are acceptable and they are so used to violence as a way of correction such that they cannot imagine any other forms of discipline. Zambia Police Service Victim Support Unit coordinator, Peter Kanunka said most cases of corporal punishment go unreported unless in situations where a teacher physically and emotionally hurts a pupil. Unfortunately, even such cases are in most cases not reported, therefore, perpetuating the menace of corporal punishment as a form of punishment. "Survivors grow up traumatised as a result of physical and emotional pain inflicted on them," Mr Kanunka said. Unfortunately, the ban on corporal punishment in schools has not been followed up by measures that offer alternatives to the vice. Many teachers feel that the Government prohibited corporal punishment without providing them with proper guidelines and training on alternative methods of discipline. The lack of skills to manage discipline through non-violent ways and cultural beliefs that tend to encourage the beating of children as a way of disciplining them have perpetrated the practice. There is need to provide teachers with some form of training in disciplining children by using positive and non-violent ways that can be incorporated in the teachers' training curriculum. |
16 | 9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00007-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be decriminalised In addition to our third argument: Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else |
43 | e3944735-2019-04-18T16:33:26Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Winter is a Better Season than Summer It's my pleasure to accept! 1 – Yard Work. Pro shows that cardiovascular exercise can damage a heart's health and I am not disputing this as cardiovascular exercise can be done all year around. However, to clarify, the source for this statement mentions that the study is done on those who have excessively done cardiovascular exercise, such as Olympic runners. My original statement on the relationship between shoveling snow and cardiovascular risks stems from the warm up. As Pro has mentioned before, Winter is a great time to rest, the idea of warming up before tasks would be reluctant and is a problem that many face. Shoveling snow is also falling out of practice in some areas as people are using more snow-blowers[1] and this can be reflected in that most people do not like to shovel snow[2]. I've claimed that Summer is excellent times compared to Winter to produce crops because Pro defines the landscape of Winter as "a drastic change." This implication is once again that we are considering a Winter Wonderland and in such settings greenhouses are needed to effectively produce crops, which holds great limitations for quantity. UKs provisional crops at June last year mentions the decrease due to the harsh Winter months[3]. A harsh Winter cannot only deteriorate its own time frame for crops, but of further seasons as well. 2 – Celebrations. In Pros original post the Winter celebrations were mentioned and I quote "...range from the festivities of Christmas and...". I've included festivities as Pro mentioned them first. Holidays in essence are festive and as Pro has linked to the definitions we can see that festival as a noun is "a special time or event when people gather to celebrate something." Making the amount of time to gather with friends and/or family much larger in Summer. The list provided by Pro of winter activities is biased as it is a list dedicated to Winter and also contains events not celebrated any more (times of old such as Roman, Saxon, and old Germanic festivals). 3 – Sports. Sports such as water sports and Winter sports may be enjoyed throughout seasons by artificially creating the proper environment, this is true for ice rinks in Summer and indoor pool usage during Winter, but respectively they both have events that would be incredibly difficult to reproduce outside of their perspective seasons. Which ones again boils it down to personal preference. 4 – Food. Warm foods are best enjoyed during the Winter and cold foods are best enjoyed during Summer, this is not mean warm food is not enjoyable or as enjoyable in Summer (vice-versa for Winter). Pro did claim that "Summer weather makes it way too hot to eat soup or drink hot chocolate. Even drinks such as tea and coffee are harder to enjoy in the summer because of their warmth." The idea that soup or hot chocolate cannot be eaten during Summer is nonexistent, while tea and coffee are still very much enjoyable as most locales (such as homes and business) are temperature controlled. I'm doubting that during Winter Pro drinks heated water, all fruits microwaved, and melted ice creams during Winter, and regardless if Pro does, this would boil down to preference. 5 – Summer Cost. Pro associated crime rate with the absence of school and the source for this claims that this could be a factor and continues to say that it is speculation as juveniles already contribute to a large portion of violent crime, that there is nothing special about summer that may cause an increase in offenses. Another factor that the article brings into play is that it may be due to the large interaction between members in society that brings people together, such as potential wrongdoers. This goes to show that Summer is a time where people truly get together (regardless of their reasons). 6 – Stress & Crime – As mentioned in Summer Cost, Summer brings potential wrongdoers together and this makes July the highest murdering month (Summer) and then followed by December (Winter). The idea that Winter is safer than Summer by far is nonexistent as they are two of the most criminally active months. July being a month of personal vendettas and December peaking for murders based on property. Additional to this, robbery and burglary are highest in December and January tops the list for auto theft[4]. The stress levels are at all time highs during Winter with December, January, and February peeking as the most stressful months of the year based on a 2,000 people survey[5]. Additionally to this, traveling is most stressful during December[6] and couples face the most stress in this month[7]. A time that is meant for reuniting the family and bring joy along with them shows that stress is what's really happening in their lives. 7 – Health. From Wikipedia Humans are sensitive to cold, see hypothermia. Snowblindness, norovius, seasonal depression, slipping on black ice and falling icicles are other health concerns associated with cold and snowy weather. In the Northern Hemisphere, it is not unusual for homeless people to die from hypothermia in the winter[8]. These are strictly due to cold weather rather than extracurricular activities conducted during cold weather as humans have evolved in tropical climates. Pros claim that Summer is not beneficial to improve one's mind because people may not want to and this is no different than any other season, including Winter. The holidays of Winter are actually a distraction towards one's goals. While the longer hours of darkness may provide a more restful sleep, the stress levels of the holidays do not. [1] - http://www.silive.com... [2] - http://www.startribune.com... [3] - https://www.gov.uk... [4] - http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [5] - http://www.friendslife.com... [6] - http://finance.yahoo.com... [7] - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org... |
39 | bd8467d7-2019-04-18T12:53:07Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage My opponent is either misreading statistics or intentionally misleading people here but either way I'll now explain why these points aren't sufficient to demonstrate the truth of his claims. 1. So in his first contention he claims that businesses would have more money to employ people without a minimum wage. However, this fails for several reasons: A: Many companies simply pocket the money and increase the salary of CEO's rather than employing more workers B: It doesn't really matter if more people get employed if the jobs are not sufficient to support them anyway and require welfare form the government (see my earlier contentions which have still not been refuted) C: There isn't evidence given to demonstrate that this out weighs my previous contentions even if you agreed with him and ignored my refutations. And in regards to his graph, correlation does not imply causation and that does not account for multiple economic factors such as the housing crash. 2. My opponent brings up statistics regarding the demographics for what type of people receive minimum wage, however this is not an accurate representation. I'm a bit short on time again so I'll quote an article that refutes this pretty well and is more articulate than I'd currently be: "When describing who would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased, it is important to look at everyone who earns between the current minimum wage and the proposed new one, as well as workers earning just above the new minimum wage (who would likely also see a small pay increase as employers move to preserve internal wage ladders). The typical worker who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2015 looks nothing like the part-time, teen stereotype: She is in her early thirties, works full-time, and may have a family to support. Our analysis of workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage shows: The average age of affected workers is 35 years old; 88 percent of all affected workers are at least 20 years old; 35.5 percent are at least 40 years old; 56 percent are women; 28 percent have children; 55 percent work full-time (35 hours per week or more); 44 percent have at least some college experience. Claims that mostly teenagers would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased are sometimes based erroneously upon the official Bureau of Labor Statistics data on workers who are earning the federal minimum wage or below"i.e. workers earning exactly $7.25 per hour or less. These data do not provide an accurate picture of who would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased because they exclude all workers from the 19 states with higher state minimum wages, along with all workers making slightly above the current federal minimum wage but below the proposed minimum, all of whom would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased. Also, see a comprehensive analysis of the impact of raising the minimum wage in Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would give working families, and the overall economy, a much-needed boost." http://www.epi.org... The major flaw in my opponent's contentions is that they misuse statistics which is very misleading. For these reasons, I negate. |
26 | 70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
28 | 9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised Premise 1-Definition of Prostitution Con has yet to provide a clear definition to what prostitution is. Prostitution is the act of offering one's self for hire to engage in sexual relations. (1) This means that there is consent between all parties involved, to exchange a service (sex). 1-http://bit.ly... Premise 2-Purpose of Laws For prostitution to be illegal there needs to be laws against it. So that ultimately leads to the question, why do laws exist? Laws are in place to protect citizen's general safety and their rights from external forces. (2) This means that as long as one is not harming another person's rights or safety, they are not acting outside the law, and are free to make any decisions they wish. This overall allows people to have individual autonomy and free will, as long as they are not affecting another. 2-http://bit.ly... Premise 3-Regulations Countries which have legal prostitution tend to regulate it (such as Germany and the Netherlands). Two of the main problems which face prostitutes and/or johns (people who buy prostitutes), which threaten their safety, are rape/assault and STDs. There are already laws against rape/assault (which I'll get more into later), but STDs cannot be prevented the same way. However, many areas where prostitution is legal have put laws in place which make STDs among prostitutes a lot less likely. For example, in counties where prostitution is legal in Nevada, condom use and weekly tests for STDs are required by law. (3) There are also similar laws in Germany. (4, 5) In fact, even without laws requiring things such as condoms, most prostitutes won't work without one, which is how it is in the Netherlands. (6) As a result of these policies, areas which have legal prostitution see less STDs. This can be observed in Nevada, Germany, Australia, and Rhode Island (where prostitution was temporarily legal). (3, 4, 7, 8) Regulation has worked so well in Nevada, to the point where STDs are less likely among Nevada prostitutes than among California porn stars. (3) 3-http://huff.to...4-http://bit.ly...5-http://bit.ly...6-http://bit.ly...7-http://bit.ly...8-http://bit.ly... Premise 4-Dangers of Illegal Prostitution Con mentions a stat that says about 80% of prostitutes have been raped, which I agree with. In fact, most prostitutes are too scared to even report violence from customers to the police, because they don't want to be prosecuted. (9) So, one would expect rape of prostitutes to go down in areas where prostitution is legal, because they don't have to worry about being arrested or otherwise punished. The stats support this. For example, despite other crimes happening at about the same rate, rape decreased dramatically when rape was legal in Rhode Island. (8) The opposite ended up happening when Queensland banned brothels, with a 149% increase in women being raped, compared to a 49% increase in other offenses against women. (10) Overall, studies have shown that if rape was legalized throughout the US the rape rate would decrease by about 25%. (10) Another major problem, that doesn't exist nearly as much when rape is legal are abusive pimps. Studies have shown that 89% of women in prostitution want to escape. (11) In fact, pimps often manipulate, threaten, and abuse women in order to make sure they remain prostitutes. (12) However, if women were protected under the law they would no longer have to serve pimps and could work for a brothel, which could not abuse their employees or force them to leave. 9- http://bit.ly...10-http://bit.ly...11-http://1.usa.gov...12- http://bit.ly... Argument 1-Regulated Prostitution Should be Legal As already shown prostitution in its pure form is done with consent, so no one's rights are harmed. Also, as shown regulations can make it safer. Plus, having it be illegal makes it more dangerous than it has to be. For that reason prostitution should be legal. Premise 5-Profit from Legal Prostitution Legalizing prostitution would also provide a huge profit. Prostitution is a huge industry, which costs a lot to enforce laws against. For example, in the US $200,000,000 is spent annually on enforcing laws regarding prostitution. (13) However, potentially billions of dollars could be made from taxing prostitution, in the US alone. (14) 13-http://bit.ly...14-http://bit.ly... Argument 2-Financial Benefits As already shown prostitution would bring a lot of money into the government. This could be great for many reasons. This money could be spent on things such as police, social services, or even awareness of why people shouldn't hire prostitutes. Argument 3-Justice Benefits If the police have to focus less time on prostitution they can focus more on more serious crimes such as murder, rape, and assault. Plus, it would lead to less people being arrested for a crime which harms no one. Rebuttal 1-Encoragement of Prostitution P1: I disagree with Con's reasoning for the necessity of laws to maximize people's welfare. As mentioned in my 2nd premise, laws are better off to protect others from external forces, but otherwise they should have completely free autonomy. This way the government treats all people equal, assuming they don't harm others. P2: Sex Tourism: A culture of promiscuity is not inherently bad. One may subjectively see it as a bad, but it's not objectively bad. Con does say it hurts the city's reputation, along with its tourism industry. However, having legal prostitution may improve the city's reputation, to some people, specifically libertarians. Plus, Amsterdam is still one of the world's most popular tourist destinations, having more tourists than cities such as Tokyo and Los Angeles. (15) Plus, even though Con's argument came from tourism workers in Amsterdam, it's still essentially a subjective opinion with no evidence. Divorce: Con suggests that divorce would increase if prostitution is legal. However, no evidence is provided to support this. In fact, divorce rates in Germany and the Netherlands have increased at roughly the same rate as other Western countries and are in many cases lower: Germany (16): Netherlands (17): France (18): Belgium (19): Italy (20): Drug Use: Con provides no insight on the cause of this correlation. It could simply be because they feel like they can't leave, which is must less of a problem in legal prostitution as mentioned above. However, the cause could easily be something else as well. For example, most prostitutes are poor, and drug abuse tends to be higher among poor people. (21, 22) Also, drug use is not notably higher in Germany or the Netherlands compared to their European neighbours. In fact, both countries have among the lowest amount of people injecting drugs per capita. (23) As for the prostitutes almost everything I addressed responds to Con's concerns. Essentially, keeping it illegal just causes things such as rape and murder to occur a lot more in prostitution. C1: I disproved both premises to build this conclusion (although I only had to disprove one). P3: I accept that prostitution would increase. C2: C1 has been disproved, so C2 therefore has been as well. 15- http://read.bi...16- http://bit.ly...17- http://bit.ly...18- http://bit.ly...19- http://bit.ly...20- http://bit.ly...21- http://bit.ly...22- http://bit.ly...23- http://bit.ly... Rebuttal 2-Human Trafficking P1: I accept this premise. P2: I accept this premise. P3: If you follow the view of personal autonomy you know the prostitutes are responsible for their own actions to enter human trafficking, an illegal activity, even with legal prostitution. However, even if you follow Con's view, legal prostitution would still provide a net benefit. Currently in the US there are estimated to be 14,500-17,500 people in human trafficking. (24) Let's say the 17,500 numbers grows 100% if prostitution is legal, meaning 17,500 more people are negatively affected. However, let's examine the decline in rape. There was a 31% decrease in rape rate after rape was legalized in Rhode Island. (8) We'll be conservative and say the decline would only be 25% nationally. Con uses the stat that 80% of prostitutes have been raped. We'll use that stat as well. It is also estimated that there are 1,000,000 prostitutes in the US (we'll just account for them in the calculations, not any new prostitutes who most likely haven't been raped). (25): Decline rate*(Number of Prostitutes*Rape Rate)=Drop in Rapes -0.25*(1,000,000*0.8)=-200,000 So it appears that at least 200,000 less women will be raped. So: 17,500-200,000=-182,500 net loss in people being harmed under legal prostitution. Not to mention, this is a very conservative estimate. I said human trafficking would increase 100%, which is likely larger than it would be. Plus, I took the largest estimate of people currently in human trafficking in the US. Also, I dropped Rhode Island's rape decline rate 6% and didn't even account for the fact that stat was for overall rapes, not just prostitutes (suggesting it'd be larger drop among prostitutes). This also doesn't account for the fact less people would have STDs, less people assaulted/murdered, and less people feeling trapped as prostitutes. Finally, it doesn't account for the potential benefit from greater revenue for the government and more time for police to focus on serious crimes (such as human trafficking). C: Disproved premise 3. 24-http://bit.ly... 25-http://read.bi...Conclusion:As can be seen. There is no reason laws should exist against regulated prostitution. Plus, if legalized, many of the harms associated with prostitution would become much more minor. Finally, the benefits outweigh the costs regarding legalizing prostitution. |
27 | 90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws I think I'll do a paragraph by paragraph as well. Third Paragraph: You incorrectly state that the Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings were the cause of not enough gun control. In both cases, the commiters received their guns illegally. And in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, he was suspected of being mentally ill. However, no one ever forced him to seek help. This is fault of the administration. Again, in both cases, more gun control laws would not have helped. Repeating a past statistic, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained guns. Fourth Paragraph: I never said there was no correlation between poverty and gun violence. However, you still seem to dismiss all the statistics that show just when gun control laws are placed, gun violence increases. You have still yet to show me any evidence that poverty coincidentally increased at the same time gun control laws were placed. To back up your claims, you take a quote representing the opinions of a few unknown people. Please adress my statistics. Fifth-Seventh Paragraph: Again, I never mentioned anything about unemployment. Perhaps there is a correlation, but you have yet to adress my statistics. ---- In conclusion: 1) MidnightSpecial has yet to adress why the statistics show that gun control laws lead to gun violence, and has misdirected the audience into talks of poverty, irrelevant to the topic of gun control. 2) MidnightSpecial has yet to prove how more gun control would lead to less gun violence. 3) I have proven how less gun control would mean less gun violence. ---- At the end of the day, the simple fact is this: I want more freedom and liberty. I also want less Americans to die. Less gun control means les gun violence. And although he probably doesn't realise it, MidnightSpecial is calling for more gun violence, more death, less freedom, and less life. All voters, look at all the statistics, and use your common sense. |
7 | 826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00007-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. "The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America."(1) "5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. "(1) "State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored."(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org... |
47 | 6bd18767-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be optional in schools You make a good point about parents being demanding. You're right, many parents put a lot of pressure on their child to do well in school. But that supports my argument even more. If homework wasn't required, that would be one less thing both students and parents would have to worry about. Homework actually takes away opportunities to increase your level of individuality. Here's why: Teenagers need about 9 hours of sleep per night (1), so in order to wake up around 7:00 AM to get ready for school (most schools start around 8:00 AM), they should technically be asleep by at least 10:00 PM. Most school days end around 3:00 PM, and the average high school student takes about 3.5 hours to finish their homework every night (2)! On top of that, after school they need to eat dinner, which could take about another 30 minutes to an hour. This leaves students with, at the most, only about 3 hours left, which is most likely spent doing other required daily tasks like showering, exercising, or maybe even working. This leaves students with little to no time to express and increase their level of individuality. So basically, homework not only can cause physical and mental sickness as I stated earlier, but it also takes up important time needed for teenagers to develop properly. (1) http://kidshealth.org... (2) http://articles.latimes.com... |
42 | d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Alright. Time to blow these 10,000 characters off the roof "Longer Games" In your rebuttal you said that for some fans that longer is better. Well how about this: For some fans shorter=better. To further my argument here is a short definition by Dictionary.com Definition of the word "Longer" #5: requiring a considerable time to relate, read, etc.: a long story. Definition of the word "Better" #1: of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech. The two words are NOT the same. Literally and Not-Literally. And to finish this off. I will repeat myself. THE LONGEST GAME OFF HOCKEY IS LONGER THEN THE LONGEST GAME OF SOCCER. Your rebuttal supported my statement. Hockey games CAN be longer then soccer games. Period "Hockey Players are weaker/Break times" Your point supports my argument that Hockey is a better team sport. This constant shift allows others to change the tide of the game allowing for a more rich and exciting game of hockey. It is not a sign of weakness but rather to give everyone a chance and to keep the bench from not over-crowding. You also did not mention how hard the soccer players work. You can be playing soccer for 45 minutes but work very lightly. Just because your playing for longer does not mean you are working hard. "Popularity" Being popular has it's drawbacks as well. Look at Brazil as an example. If they lose the FIFA world cup later this year then I can almost guarantee there will be a riot. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Just because a sport is popular does not mean it's good. In fact I don't think you made an argument about how being more popular makes hockey better. Only in business is soccer better. But I think the topic was that "Soccer is a BETTER sport than Hockey" Not "Soccer is a better BUSINESS then Hockey" "Inclusiveness Worldwide" Have you ever heard of the AHF? The full name is the African Hockey Federation. Saying that there is less inclusiveness in Hockey is untrue. And like I wrote before. There are MANY types of Hockey. In Africa, they play field hockey. The topic is about all hockey and all soccer. Due to the many types of Hockey it (Soccer) is almost as included amongst the world. "Easiness to Learn" Wow. You say that Hockey Players are weak but you then say that they need to learn a whole bunch of skills? That must mean either Hockey Players are NOT weak or that Hockey IS easy to learn or both. I'm pretty sure that the difficulty makes Hockey Games funner and more interesting. I want to see a game where the players have to compete to win. I want to see the players think about a strategy. No sport should be easy, and if Soccer is as easy as you say it is, then I don't want to watch it. "Injuries" http://www.oddee.com... Think Injuries in Hockey are bad? Think again. Check these injuries out. Some of the injuries in this link were career-enders. I'm not saying that injuries do not happen in Hockey, I'm just saying that Soccer injuries match Hockey injuries. I see no other reason to continue. "Goalies" There are two reasons why you are wrong. First of all, Hockey pucks are small. Soccer balls are big. A goalie in soccer has a better chance of seeing the ball then the goalie in hockey seeing the puck. Second reason is the speed of the objects. A hockey puck may go 100 mph while a soccer ball goes only 20 mph. If you had a giant net in hockey like you do in soccer there would be many, many more goals and there would be no challenge to score causing there to be a more boring game. The size of the net does not make the goalies worse. One more thing. You forgot the amount of gear that the goalies in hockey wear. 20 pounds of big sweaty gear and you can only crouch. I think that takes alot of skill to keep all of that weigh on your body. Now to refute some of my opponents rebuttals Jacobie1121's rebuttal #1: Huh. You must have mistaken Hockey fights with Hockey violence. One is semi-banned and one is bad. I think Hockey fights are alright because they almost always occur because the defender in the fight cheated before. So you have to ask yourself: Is it bad sportsmanship to defend your team? Jacobie1121's rebuttal #2: Is it easier to get goals in Hockey? It's a smaller playing area, smaller net, bigger goalie with padding and trained professionals. In soccer you have a bigger playing area, bigger net, smaller goalie with NO padding and a few trained professionals. Plus in hockey the players are faster so it would be easier to take the puck and go and defend the goal. Scoring in hockey is not a piece of cake that's for sure! Jacobie1121's rebuttal #3: How many of those 25 soccer players get on the field? In hockey ALL players on a team have to contribute. This is how Hockey is more of a team sport. Just because there are more overall players does not mean that they all contribute. But in Hockey every player is critical. Jacobie1121's rebuttal #4: I don't like people getting hurt. I NEVER said I want people to get hurt in Hockey fights. NEVER. My second argument is available for viewing. I never once say "I like people getting hurt" I do MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) in my spare time. Do like it because I want to hurt people or because I like the sport? Also I do NOT care if the diver gets caught or not. The fact that a professional sportsman would attempt such a thing just shocks me and ruins entire games for me. Jacobie1121's rebuttal #5: Please go up for my answer as I already wrote it in my first rebuttal. Jacobie1121's rebuttal #6: Does it not require the perfect breeze and sun to play/ How about those open-roofed stadiums which must soccer games take place. What if it rains? What is it snows? Because there are so many types of Hockey out there you can play it year round but you can only play soccer a few times a year. Resources used; http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://ca.sports.yahoo.com... http://www.oddee.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Thanks for all the viewers voters and most of all to Jacobie1121 VOTE CON!! |
50 | ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved. |
29 | 31f5da82-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00088-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right. Governments are required by their Constitutions to protect their citizens from crime and foreign threats. In so far as illegal immigration threatens citizens, governments are required to respond aggressively. Arizona, who's citizens have been terribly affected by illegal immigration, is required to respond robustly in fighting the problem. |
8 | 6702bd9b-2019-04-18T17:04:32Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Sorry, I can't cancel, but I certainly don't want to force you to debate against something you agree with. Let's just wait for the debate to time out. Post a few words, and then I won't post anything else. I don't want the loss to work against your record, but I honestly don't care if I forfeit. I'll just start the topic up again in a few days. |
22 | 73691aa4-2019-04-18T18:49:53Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Media in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict How do we know what is true when we read/watch news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Americans are invested in the conflict for a bounty of different reasons and the sources for the ways they stay up-to-date have dramatic effects on the way they relate to the conflict. In the relationship between people in the U.S. and the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, I think Americans are blindly polarized by biases in media sources. |
47 | 59460e7f-2019-04-18T13:41:43Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework is horrible Hello, my name is dtien and I will be arguing that homework is not a waste of time. Homework isn't simply "busy work" teachers give to students: 5 studies show a positive correlation between completing homework and excelling in school. Besides helping children understand the assignments given in class, homework teaches students how to be responsible and to manage their time wisely. If a child is falling behind one day in class, that child is given the ability to catch up before the next class by doing homework. Homework also gives students questions to study for their tests. http://education.cu-portland.edu... I apologize for being so brief but this is really all the proof I need to show that homework is beneficial. Hopefully I can expand on my ideas next round once I know what Pro has to say. Have a good day and good luck to my opponent! |
20 | 6b79d6dc-2019-04-18T16:35:35Z-00003-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Milk Cartons My opponent has forfeited. Would just like to add that another handle would also increase the size of the jug itself, becoming larger and more inconvenient to store. |
44 | b38b6b92-2019-04-18T13:11:31Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | You choose the topic International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul. |
6 | f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I'm typing this on my phone so sorry in advance for any typos/terrible sources. Thus debate has been quite problematic as... 1) whilst the premise 'higher education is outdated for the millennial generration' is clear enough, I wasn't clear on what my argument would be on - that higher education is outdated and needs serious reform whilst being maintained. 2) con accepted the debate believing that higher education was indeed, outdated for the millennial generation, and accepted anyway believing that he would argue for 'pro education' (if my interpretation is correct) 3) this confusion was found out after my first argument as shown in the comments. Hence I suggested and we agreed to compromise so that my argument would be 'higher education is outdated, and therefore not worth it to everyone'. Sadly I later found myself arguing for a position I did not personally believe in, but I will maintain this position for the sake of this debate. CON RE: millennials care more about contributing to society, and college education opens up more doors to help society that High school cannot. (E.g. Nursing, doctors) 1- Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. Medicine has extended everyone's quality of life for 7 years. Yet, 1) the amount of good medicine has done is overestimated 2) increase in age is not mutually exclusive to increase in disabled life - hence a full quality life is not completely true. 3) doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses) In the end, we can save 6 times the amount of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation. 2- You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact (the idea that these are mutually exclusive is false) examples : Stephen Spielberg, Mark zuckerverg, Bill Gates 3-Medicine is not the only way you can solve world problems it is sometimes not even the best way. What about electricity? Or education? Or government? CON RE: if college is not worth it, why are more millennials going to college than any other generation? They must be going for a meaningful degree that can help society. Millennials are going to college more than any other generation because they have the most opportunity to go, because they are pushed (45%) by their parents to go, perhaps because they believe it can lead them where they want to be also. However millennials are also expected to only be able to repay their debts in the next 11 years, 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree. (2) RE: there exists alternative pathways to college education - Con argues some fields do not have alternatives, and alternatives are not needed if college education becomes tax funded. 1- yes some fields do not have alternatives, but it is increasingly clear today that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts and in some cases even in science. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Additionally one field of practise is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire pool of millennials as a whole. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for example. (2) 2-Con suggests that tax payer money be used to fully fund college education. Whilst that is the case for Germany today, and even Australia in the past, I personally don't believe this is possible in America. It is a strong liberal democracy that values it's small government. It also strongly advocates for the freedom of the people from 'corrupt officials' etc. To believe a call for such a huge reform with such major repercussions on the people to become successful would be too idealistic. One would have to convince the president-trump, Congress (which I imaging would be near impossible) and the judiciary to even consider this. Not to mention the inequality that exists in the US today already - to ask for more tax paying money would be difficult. RE: Skill can be better used as a qualifier for job performance - Con argues you often develop your skills from college and not every employee will give you an examination, and hence college is necessary to indicate your skills. Yes many develop skills from college but this is only because it forces people to keep working. Your own resolution to succeed is what is important. Hence, you do not need a college degree to develop your skills. No, usually a career in these fields do not require an examination, but rather an example of their work (e.g. A photograph, a piece of writing, a translation, a conversation in French etc.) which I believe speaks louder than certifications of a degree. RE: statistic argument Sorry as you didn't exemplify that you averaged the two statistics I only guessed that you compared each statistic with the general statistic of 23.5%. Yes I admit my calculation was wrong but I didn't really trust that addition of the two percentages anyway and it was used more of an example as to why comparing 2 independent means together is unreliable. As to why your calculation is unreliable - I don't have my computer here but it seems to be that you don't know the sample size of any of the statistics that you used (undergraduates with anxiety or depression, postgraduates with anxiety or depression, adults with anxiety, adults with depression) and hence am unable to make a reliable statistical comparison between any of the figures. You don't know if these population sample figures are normally distributed either, or independent from each other. Hence you cannot come up with a reasonable T statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis which is - are the means of postgraduates with anxiety or depression the same with the means of adults with anxiety or depression? (Or likewise with undergraduates) not to mention that adults with anxiety or depression have two different sample sizes being from different sources. I have also taken statistics as a unit this year (3) Also, Thanks for this debate con! I enjoyed it despite our confusions haha. I have developed a lot more insight about millennials, about the past, and about college and higher education in general. 1) https://80000hours.org... 2)http://www.forbes.com... 3) https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu... |
6 | 472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article," The Economic Policy Institute", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, "For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment. |
19 | 9bfef25f-2019-04-18T13:27:14Z-00006-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Should Be Legal I believe Gay marriage should be legal all over the world. It isn't a sin and it isn't wrong. |
18 | f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Thanks, Hayd.I'm just going to respond to Hayd's attacks since I directly refuted his case in my own. There will be a lot of fresh attacks against his case wrapped up in my defenses.I. Religion is a social goodHayd concedes this point entirely, noting only that public events could be held at schools, crowding out after-school activities.You can vote Con. It is not remotely plausible that forcing Churches to hire armies of tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties (many of which are priceless architectural marvels) will help religion in this country. Remember, active involvement in a religious community extends life, makes that life happier and more fulfilled, and increases that individuals positive impact on society. Does Hayd want to compare that record with the government? His only real response is that my claims that religion will be damaged if it's taxed is unwarranted. I didn't hit this very much because I assumed it was completely obvious, but I'll note that Hayd totally dropped my argument regarding the business model of churches assuming that they don't pay taxes. Adding a massive tax burden throws that model into flux and adds instability for no reason. I'm not sure what else I can be expected to do here. As the complete take down of the Council of Secular Humanism article shows, making accurate estimates about this kind of thing is incredibly difficult and often leaves you with your foot in your mouth. Instead you have to go with the logic that, yes, having to hire armies of tax lawyers, pay property and income taxes, and totally change your business model from the bottom to the top is going to cause damage on the margins. Corporations fight taxes tooth and nail for a reason, the extra expense harms the bottom line. Since Hayd has totally conceded that the bottom line of religion is a massive boon for society, it's difficult to see how Pro can win the debate. But the absurdity of this line of attack really comes through when you get into the specifics behind Hayd's case. Hayd later claims that the government will make tons of money because the average property tax burden on the 300,000 churches would be over $26,000. Doesn't sound so bad if you're thinking about Billy Graham sized crowds. Except the majority of congregations in this country consist of less than 100 people. $26,000 distributed over, say, 50 congregants is an incredible burden that would shut down almost any church. And that's just the property taxes.I'm also going to rebut Hayd's entire case by calling for him to morally justify taxation. The general argument for taxing corporations is that since society provides for them via the roads their goods travel on, the police force protecting them from robbery, and so on they owe something in return. If churches are as great as I claim they are, and Hayd has conceded to every single one of my claims, they are already fulfilling their debt to society. The moral justification for taxing churches is bunk. II. Economic effects Hayd writes: "[Thett] assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church's." This is ***COMPLETELY*** false and not at all how corporate taxes work. If expenses weren't tax deductible, literally every business in the United States would go under. Corporations are taxed on their *income* which is the number you get after subtracting revenue (all of the money the organization takes in that year) from expenses (everything it spends). So for example in 2015 Ford earned some $149 million in revenue[1], but operating costs ate at that number until the taxable income was a mere $10 million. Legitimate operating expenses like building upkeep and employee payment are ALWAYS tax-deductible because they whittle away the corporations taxable income.Hayd says he is not allowing churches to deduct these legitimate expenses. He loses his previous argument that churches won't be hit very hard by his new taxes as he is subjecting religions to a completely unfair and unique tax burden by not allowing them to write off operating costs. If he chooses not to advocate for this exaggerated and unfair tax burden, I hereby turn his entire case: Hayd's impact relies upon more money going to charity if you tax churches. But the reality is that *LESS* money will be going to go to charity. Right now in order to maintain their non-profit status, churches are legally prohibited from having an income. As we've already discussed, on average 71% of their income goes to expenses and only 29% would be considered "income." Hayd gets the government some of that 29%. But the Church keeps the rest. And now that they're no longer obligated to maintain their non-profit status, with many strapped for cash due to the massive financial burden Hayd throws on them, can they really be expected to donate all of their remaining profits to charity? By legally turning churches into a business, Hayd is actually reducing the money that goes to charity and opening the door for unscrupulous religious leaders to enrich themselves from church revenue. Further, if you don't buy that turn for some reason, you still vote Con because Hayd can't just assume that all the money is going to be donated to charity. The resolution does not say "Churches ought to be taxed and the proceeds will go to charity"--we have NO REASON to assume that the government will give this money to charitable causes and Hayd has not articulated any.You can vote Con because Hayd literally has no impacts. His plan requires you to assume that no churches are hurt by a sudden tax burden, the church does not retaliate against the government in a negative way, that no churches keep rather than donate their profits now that they have the option, and that the government will donate the proceeds to charity. Give him all of these EXTREMELY GENEROUS assumptions and it is STILL a wash. Even if you don't buy any of my own points Hayd still loses because he adds instability to the status quo without producing any tangible improvement.III. Church and State Hayd fundamentally misunderstands why the sacred and the secular should be separate spheres. He says the argument that churches would retaliate to this violation of their sovereignty is unwarranted, but he is actively undermining their interests by imposing a massive financial burden. Hayd says he doesn't see a problem with the church influencing secular politics, but the vast majority of Americans do. When His Holiness the Pope himself criticized Trump he was roundly condemned and THE POPE apologized. I find it extremely doubtful that Hayd can't see the obvious problem with every election in the United States literally being decided by who the major religions endorse. All it takes is one instance of the church's political position contradicting the public good for there to be an impact when you're working with a government that is completely reliant on the church for its legitimacy. This is the road to dominionism. Remember that since Hayd has no impacts, even the tiniest risk of an undue religious influence on the government harming the public good is enough to win me the debate. Hayd bizarrely responds to my religious discrimination argument by claiming that lawsuits wouldn't cost the government anything because the law is the law, despite making an extremely similar point in his first round. Which is it? Hayd causes a lot of instability without anything to show for it. The resolution is completely negated. Sources:1. http://www.nasdaq.com... |
46 | f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00001-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. -My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as "a general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation." Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that "it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer," an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition's only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which "requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner," with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the "highly transparent and democratic manner" bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition's solution for corruption and the FCC's blatant censorship is to make them "highly transparent and democratic," yet doesn't have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a "highly democratic" onto a 'highly transparent' does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition's arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition's solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition's interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that "Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those." Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that "there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content" directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition's attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn't change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition's case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition's exclusion of current legislation is the FCC's history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition's only proposed argument against the right of ISP's to price their services freely is that "they can't be trusted to govern the internet" and "it would hurt the consumer." As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition's attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld. |
8 | b1870922-2019-04-18T12:50:45Z-00003-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion Should abortion be legal |
12 | 6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments. |
28 | f2b77005-2019-04-18T14:36:34Z-00006-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized The Legalization of Prostitution is one of my faviorte debate topics. I wish my opponent good luck! ;) C.1 "Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking" By legalizing prostitution, we are saying that prostitution is okay. It makes it much easier when legalized, to commit sex-trafficking. Not only women are used for these actions, but children as well. [1] One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help to end the exploitation of desperate immigrant women who had been trafficked there for prostitution. However, one report found that 80% of women in the brothels of the Netherlands were trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999)(1). In 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, "nearly 70 % of trafficked women were from CEEC [Central and Eastern European Countries]" As you can read, the statistics hold at 70% of trafficked women. Can we not agree that there are better way for these women to make money then to sell their bodies to men? But don't take my word for it, it has been proven, that countries or states with legalized prostitution have a higher rate of sex-trafficking. [2] A study of the impact of legalized prostitution has found that countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows than countries in which prostitution is prohibited. .. . Professor Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and a team of researchers analyzed data on human trafficking from a global sample of 116 countries in order to determine what effect a country's domestic policy on prostitution has on trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims. The authors described international human trafficking as "one of the dark sides of globalization," where the victims, the vast majority of whom are women and girls, end up being sexually exploited through prostitution. " Many people want to argue that most prostitutes are grown women whom can take care of themselves. Even this is false. Many women are held against their will by their employers to work for them and to get money. But human trafficking brings in more children who are unable to take care of themselves and defend themselves. They are taken advantage of because they are young, unknowing and vulnerable. [2] "Most victims of international human trafficking are women and girls coerced into the sex industry abroad," said Professor Neumayer. "We wanted to find out if legalized prostitution increases or reduces demand for trafficked women. "The researchers considered two opposing economic theories that could come into play to support their findings: the "scale effect" where legalized prostitution leads to an expansion of the prostitution market, thus increasing human trafficking, and the "substitution effect" that reduces demand for trafficked women as legal prostitutes are favored over trafficked ones. " As a government, their job is to not only protect a citizens' rights, but to ensure the safety of the citizens. Given the statistics of human-trafficking, legalizing Prostitution only leads to a major increase in human-trafficking. Facts about Human Trafficking: [3] Globally, the average cost of a slave is $90. Trafficking primarily involves exploitation which comes in many forms, including: forcing victims into prostitution, subjecting victims to slavery or involuntary servitude and compelling victims to commit sex acts for the purpose of creating pornography. According to some estimates, approximately 80% of trafficking involves sexual exploitation, and 19% involves labor exploitation. There are approximately 20 to 30 million slaves in the world today. According to the U. S. State Department, 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, of which 80% are female and half are children. The average age a teen enters the sex trade in the U. S. is 12 to 14-year-old. Many victims are runaway girls who were sexually abused as children. California harbors 3 of the FBI's 13 highest child sex trafficking areas on the nation: Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. The National Human Trafficking Hotline receives more calls from Texas than any other state in the US. 15% of those calls are from the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the U. S. each year. Human trafficking is the third largest international crime industry (behind illegal drugs and arms trafficking). It reportedly generates a profit of $32 billion every year. Of that number, $15.5 billion is made in industrialized countries. The International Labour Organization estimates that women and girls represent the largest share of forced labor victims with 11.4 million trafficked victims (55%) compared to 9.5 million (45%) men. It's obvious, Human Trafficking is immoral. Why on earth should be legalize it knowing the major consequences, especially to children who have no choice. C.2 Violence and Abuse When women don't wish to be a prostitute anymore, they can just leave. This is very incorrect. They may be able to leave if they are half beaten to death, or they may just be killed. [4] A prostituted woman might also be afraid of what her pimp will do to her and afraid for her life if she tries to leave. For many women, prostitution and sexual exploitation might be the only life they know. The average age for girls entering prostitution is between 12-13. ** And studies show that 75 to 95% of all prostitutes were sexually abused as children. *** Prostituted women are often victims of intimate partner violence by pimps and customers, often called "johns. " The methods of control that pimps and johns use are similar to the methods used by abusers. Some examples include: physical violence; sexual assault; economic abuse or manipulation; isolation; verbal abuse; threats and intimidation; and minimization and denial of physical violence. "Women in prostitution have a death rate that is significantly higher than women who are not involved in prostitution. * One small study of 130 prostitutes found that 68% of the prostituted women interviewed met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was in the same range as combat veterans and victims of torture. " Knowing the consequences for being involved in Prostitution only goes to show that it's okay for women to be abused, killed and held against their will by their pimps. As a government, as stated before, the government should be ensuring citizens safety, not encouraging violence. Explore Campaigns Sources: [1] . http://www.embracedignity.org... [2] . https://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] . https://www.dosomething.org... [4] . http://www.womenslaw.org... |
36 | b032fa0a-2019-04-18T15:02:37Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Basketball is worse than golf! Basketball is defined as, a game played between two teams of five players, in which goals are scored by throwing a ball through a netted hoop fixed at each end of the court. Basketball is popular world wide and is suitable for all ages http://channels.isp.netscape.com.... Golf and basketball are similar in few ways according to http://thegratefulgolfer.com..., but how good are they in terms of your health? Basketball is definitely a faster running game compared to golf. To play golf though, you have to have patience and good eye sight, which could fail some people. Basketball is definitely much better than golf for the fitness reasons of (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...): -burn calories (an hour of basketball can burn 630–750 calories)-build endurance-improve balance and coordination-develop concentration and self-discipline-build up muscle-take care of your body more (stretches/warmup/warm down)Basketball is a more competitive sport compared to golf. Making you work towards something, and hopefully achieving it. This might be as simple as wining a game or be a fluent shooter. People at all ages can play it, and all you need to practice is a ball and a hoop. Basketball is played by people of all ages and all abilities, meaning you can challenge yourself. If you want to be the best at basketball, you do specialised training. This evolves sprints, jumping, core, strength and conditioning and more. As basketball is played all year round and is mainly an indoor sport, so you can aim to be fit all year.Children at all levels can enjoy the game too whilst making friends. As golf only evolves a small amount of people, basketball has at least 10 players each game. http://www.livestrong.com....Wheel chair basketball is also an option for people who have disabilities or have had an accident. However, it stops you from being able to play golf. Wheel chair basketball is most likely one of the best sports for people who have disabilities.In addition, basketball is much more preferable than golf. Linking it to higher fitness levels, more people to socialise with, get to be more motivated and everyone can participate in basketball. |
15 | 59a01d40-2019-04-18T18:41:19Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal testing should be banned First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. (http://www.newscientist.com....) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees (http://www.safermedicines.org...). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. (http://www.newint.org...) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take (http://www.newscientist.com...) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest. |
9 | 2fd4b8f3-2019-04-18T19:03:09Z-00006-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms are good I am taking my position as con for the argument that school uniforms should be used. I will post my arguments in round two. |
24 | 1e1c8b2a-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | a progressive tax rate Individuals' property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society |
1 | 24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00004-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. To My Future Opponent: Thank you for accepting my challenge. I started this debate to learn the pros and cons of this subject, and I chose the side that is my personal opinion (for now). Please feel free to any styles of debating. However I find it a more constructive debate if you hit each of my points as well as making your own. Hobey ho, lets go! In public high schools, tenure is considered a right for teachers who have passed their (usually) 3 year probationary term. Roughly 2.3 million public school teachers in the U.S. have tenure. (Time) Tenure is job security aimed at impeding wanton firing of "unpopular" teachers. Although noble in theory, tenure is simply wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 1) If a teacher deserves to be fired, it is a daunting task for the school district to do so, leading to bad teachers staying in the system. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, "Though tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment, it does make firing teachers a difficult and costly process, one that involves the union, the school board, the principal, the judicial system and thousands of dollars in legal fees. In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismissed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and substitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives." As I mentioned before, a noble attempt at stopping corruption, yet it fails to recognize bad teachers in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 2) There are numerous cases of teachers that deserved to be fired, proved difficult because of tenure. Yet again, from Time, "A Connecticut teacher received a mere 30-day suspension for helping students cheat on a standardized test; one California school board spent $8,000 to fire an instructor who preferred using R-rated movies instead of books; a Florida teacher remained in the classroom for a year despite incidents in which she threw books at her students and demanded they referred to her as 'Ms. God.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 3) Tenure can easily lead to teacher complacency. This point is simply logic. If a man or woman has a job they know they won't be fired from (within loose limits), are they really going to work extremely hard to better themselves at their job? In today's world, probably not. The same goes with teachers. Please note, I'm not saying all teachers are lazy scumbags who deserve to be fired, but this is simply a problem with tenure. I'm 100% sure that we've all had a teacher who just didn't care anymore. Mine was in a science class. She never taught a thing. All we did was handouts. Easiest 'A' I've gotten in my life, but that's not the point of school. Tenure allows for 'Blow off classes' and 'easy a's', but is that necessarily a good thing, especially with legislation requiring standardized tests. If students are doing poorly, school districts get less grants, making it even harder to educate new students. It's a slippery slope that many schools are finding themselves in. You may be saying that tenure isn't the only cause of this, but it is a factor. Bad teachers = bad students. Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possible Solution: Get rid of the tenure system and create a new teacher grading system in which good teachers are kept and bad teachers are fired. I've been thinking about the education system a lot recently, and the only possible alternative I could find in my mind, is a merit based system. It would keep crass politics out of the system by assuring teachers their job (if they are up to it). I propose a three part test. A) Course Knowledge Exam- The teacher ought to know what they are talking about. B) Teacher Improvement Standards- There are numerous workshops and the like that are available to teachers. They should be required to attend a certain amount of such meetings yearly to keep up with the times and teaching styles. C) In Class Examination- Although teachers are often subjected to scheduled "watching" periods in which an official of the school sits in on a lesson, this is not enough. They should have a set number of random sit ins to insure the teacher is actually teaching, instead of simply making a show on that one scheduled day. |
50 | e2c95e7f-2019-04-17T11:47:30Z-00056-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Holocaust denial wrongly promotes some rights over others Beate Rudolf, an expert on European law at Berlin's Free University: "This is a difficult argument because they [supporters of banning Holocaust denial] are saying that to promote one basic human right you need to limit freedom of speech, which is another basic human right."[5] |
18 | f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00005-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes The resolution of this debate can only be fulfilled by the government passing legislation. This is because taxation is inherently governmental. Governments, societies, individuals, and all other forms of entities, act (or ought to act) on a utilitarian basis: things that have more benefits than harms ought to be retained, whilst those that have more harms than benefits ought to be abolished. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every entity or being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.) Things that overall prevent suffering while promoting pleasure are thus good for that being. Because we know that other sentient beings undergo this as well, we can *empathize* with them and thus seek to extend the same principle (preventing suffering and promoting pleasure) to them. Without empathy morality cannot exist, it is contingent. Given that morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether entities should or should not do something, morality can be used to determine whether a government should or should not make churches pay taxes. I find that the benefits of taxing churches outweigh the costs associated with it, and thus I affirm the resolution. The first way in which church tax exemption brings a societal cost is through the US government being forced to defend itself in lawsuits over tax exemption status to certain institutions (such as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other controversial faiths.) Lawsuits against government entities require that the government spend money in order to defend themselves against the lawsuit. The amount of money required to do this is enormous. For example, Texas has spent $3.5 million defending themselves against voter ID lawsuits [1]. This same issue happens over interpretation of tax exemption laws for churches. This can be seen in the Church of Scientology's numerous and year long lawsuits against the government wherein they can harness millions of dollars in funds; which the government then has to match. In the end, tax exemption law results in millions of dollars in lost money for the US government. My second argument is thus: churches are not like other (secular) not-for-profit charitable organizations. Churches' primary goal is in the practice and spread of their religion, rather than charity like other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations. Research has found that around 29% of the average church's income is for charitable purposes, the rest is used for internal costs such as wages [2]. Other, secular charities though are able to do *more* good with their funds. For example, the Red Cross uses 92.1% of its income for helping people. A property tax on churches would raise around $71 billion dollars per year [3], while the commercial income tax would raise around $6.75 billion. (This is because the median congregation income is $60,000 [6], and thus the income tax bracket becomes $7,500 + 25% [8], meaning $22,500 payed in taxes per congregation. Given there are 300,000 congregations in America, that ends up being 6,750,000,000.) Reallocating money from churches, where only 29% of it would go to help people to secular charities where 92% of it will be used to help people, would be a massive impact on the effectiveness of charity. Significantly more people will be helped through charity. It is important to note the amount of money that $71 billion dollars is, as it is easy to just put it away as another number. $71 billion dollars is more than the top two wealthiest charities in the world combined [4]. Using all of this money for charity work rather than a fraction of it, as would happen without taxes, is a huge impact. Taxes on churches will also give more funds to local governments, and given that local governance is the most important government, the impact of this on people is substantial. Plus, George Washington said that, "I agree with...Ha...yd's...argument that...churches…should pay taxes." (1782) [10] Peace and Love [1] https://www.texastribune.org... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://bigthink.com...\ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [6] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu... [7] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [10] https://www.amazon.com...;*Version*=1&*entries*=0&linkCode=sl1&tag=worst-products-ever-20&linkId=d6148e5e63820f864ff4057c05fc18e1 |
47 | e9afb1c6-2019-04-18T15:19:00Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | should there be homework I believe that people should give homework out because you can get an education from learning from homework, you use it in life, and most of all you can responsibly and with responsibility you can get a job. |
14 | 479deab2-2019-04-18T19:24:32Z-00005-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid My rebuttals: I do not agree with my opponent in his claim that homosexuality is a sexual behavior. I would like to clarify the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation/attraction. Sexual Behavior: The method and/or means in which a person chooses to express their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation/Attraction: the direction of a persons emotional and physical desire, toward people of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. If needed proof to distinguish the difference, how does one know they are heterosexual if they've never had any physical contact with a person of the opposite sex? Are they a clean slate? No, they are simply attracted to others of the opposite sex. Sexual Orientation determines sexual behavior, not vice versa. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and incest are all examples of sexual behavior, and there are legitimate reasons why marriage among these behaviors should remain illegal: Polygamy: Takes advantage of marriage benefits most especially. Imagine an employer having to pay insurance to a worker with who knows how many wives! This is unfair to other couples and to the government providing them with this abundance of benefits. Bestiality: Are animals covered by our constitution? Homosexuals are human beings, whom ARE covered by our constitution. Pedophilia: Children do not have the mental capacity and/or ability to consent over and adult. Incest: If a man loves his sister, there are still many "fish in the sea" that man would be able to marry. If that man were a homosexual, he has no options, for he can not marry any other man. I am aware of the stigmas between many of these sexual behaviors mentioned and can understand why many would associate homosexuality into them. But when analyzing the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, one can clearly see that homosexuality just does not share the same label with these behaviors. |
30 | 4d21044-2019-04-18T15:20:38Z-00003-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime I accept. |
1 | c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | There should not be a teacher tenure. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. " Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. "("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around" for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms") where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for "academic freedom"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: "Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. "("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. "(Rebuttal for "high standard"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. " This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false. |
9 | 5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should have to wear school uniforms Okay so now your bragging about your academic accomplishments, not proving your point. Just so you know I'm 12 years not 21 in the profile description. I'm only twelve and still winning this debate. My school has a uniform policy and all the students are smart and intelligent. In my last school there was no such thing as an uniform and I couldn't spell us. I was that dumb back then and now with my new school and uniform policy, I'm smarter than you. With no uniform i only cared on what people wore, with uniforms I can study on my work. You're lying when you say you wear the first thing you grab out of the closet. What if you pull out a dress that your sister put in there. Having uniforms make it an easier playing field for poorer students that can't buy fashionable clothing, to wear to school. They end up being teased, bullied or starting fights because there was no school uniform. If there was a uniform policy the other kids wouldn't even know that they were at all. With the money the parents saved not buying clothes for school they can buy their kids some really fashionable clothing to wear on the weekdays or on breaks. In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%. http://school-uniforms.procon.org... In my new school with the uniforms nobody is ever late, why? Uniforms help the students get ready faster in the mornings and improve attendance, which helps their over all grade. Instead of trying on each and every clothing in your wardrobe wear the one you wear everyday. Vote smartly. |
37 | 1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell phones in school Cell phones not only have the ability to help students in class but it also gives them an easy access to emergency services if an emergency were to occur. With students allowed to use their phones in school they all have the ability to call 911 at any moment, giving them a safety net as well as a reassurance. Cell phones also can help to spark conversation and ideas within the classroom. Most cell phones come with internet access nowadays and can be used to search topics for discussion as well as seeing other people's points of view on the matter. It also is a good research tool for studying as well as gaining new knowledge outside of the classroom. Cellphones also can be useful in the classroom with their full calendars that can be used to help keep track on schoolwork, school trips, and upcoming tests and quizzes. They come with a full calculator, and in some cases, come equipped with a full dictionary as well as converters of US and foreign currency. Picture and video capabilities could be used to make projects more exciting and can spark the creativity that a student can't find with simply researching and writing a paper. Education applications can help to study, while making learning fun. They can be downloaded for cheap, and sometimes even free. They cover every subject from reading to math and are accessible to every student with a smart phone. Finally being able to text brings things like poll websites into effect, making class participation easier for everyone and allowing even the shy students to answer questions without fear. It also can be used to take notes and can easily be sent to friends who were missing in class, or just shared for comparison and easy access to what each other has learned. |
18 | 9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00008-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of "Church/Mosque/Synagogue" being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word "Church" will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren't being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn't sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn't matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n't be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn't how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business' are hurt more than large business'. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn't work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating "endorsement" by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller "competitors". Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I'll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro's first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn't matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn't really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won't at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn't provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I'll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church's views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic== |
48 | d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is "the cool one", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that "Children would be harder to buy" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age. |
23 | bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America You make a valid point, but the right to life means the right to their life. They can do whatever they choose to with their life. By denying them the opportunity for a way out, you are being cruel. Assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal. |
10 | 79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Children should receive vaccinations. Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children. |
17 | d4181057-2019-04-18T18:59:23Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Why Marijuana should be legalized "I completely disagree with the laws that hold marijuana, in society, to be illegal. To claim that a plant without a portion of the consequences that alcohol or tobacco brings is to be deemed illegal is utterly foolish. With that, Marijuana should be legalized" I completely disagree with what my opponent is saying, and marijuana has effects like alcohal, driving under the infulence isn't just alcohal. Pot as it is refered to is harmful to human beings as these effects : Brain effects The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement. When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms: Hallucinations,Delusions,Impaired memory and Disorientation. Effects on the Heart Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time. Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking. Effects on the Lungs Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: Daily cough and phlegm production More frequent acute chest illnesses Increased risk of lung infections Obstructed airways Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. What About Cancer? Although one study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers, that study could not be confirmed by further analysis. Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk. Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size. For example, the participants in those studies may have been too young to have developed lung cancer yet. Even though researchers have yet to "prove" a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk. Other Health Effects Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors. Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause: Even if drinking and smoking is almost as bad doesn't make it right to do, in my strong opinion smoking should be illegal and drinking more regulated than it already is. |
13 | 7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00030-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade. The very fact that nuclear energy is the only feasible alternative that can contribute a large bulk of the world's demand makes its expansion imperative. In contrast to the affirmative's "belief", the opposition stresses that banning nuclear reactor technology strains the development and expansion of a critically important resource. While team affirmative contradicts itself by having stated strict standards impair development then suggesting nations should develop such technologies for themselves, team opposition recognizes that first, many nations do not have the power to develop the technology for themselves or to develop the technology fast enough to allow for a gradual and safe transition into alternative energy sources. Many developing nations must depend on the trade of such technologies for it to either be available to them or open possibilities of market entry the way economies such as South Korea have done with IT industries. In other words, trade allows for underdeveloped countries, where the technology is unavailable domestically, to access such technology. As for developing countries, a cheaper domestic alternative can be developed based on versions present in the market both dropping prices in the international market and increasing energy security, but as history shows, this only works as well as it can if the technology is readily available on the market. Secondly, team affirmative have introduced a counter argument regarding what we have disproved directly before. Again, we have stressed that alternative sources like solar or wind energy alone will not satisfy global energy demand. Even in the case that these technologies are developed enough in certain countries, they will be strictly geographically limited. Because of this inherent factor, such alternative energy sources will neither be universally applicable nor reliable. Therefore, such factors enforce the necessity of keeping nuclear technology available through trade. |
16 | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00007-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011 |
7 | 4972f443-2019-04-18T19:20:37Z-00004-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...] |
26 | 4ec50082-2019-04-18T19:15:30Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Public High School Students In The United States Ought Not Be Required To Pass SEE's To Graduate John Dewey once said "Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another." Thus, I stand in firm negation in today's debate. Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate." I offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary for clarity. Ought: used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence. Standardized: to bring into conformity with a standard. V: Societal Welfare Societal Welfare is defined as the wellbeing of a society in matters of health, safety, order, education, and economics. Societal Welfare must be held as the highest value because if the wellbeing of a society is in jeopardy, so is the wellbeing of the people living in it. VC: Educated Citizenry Educated citizens are vital to societal welfare in the fact that the more educated our society is, the likelier we are to make good decisions and ensure that individuals have the opportunity to maximize themselves to their full potential. Contention One: Standardized exit exams are the best way to measure knowledge. Lionel Brown, 2006. Standardized testing is the best alternative for comparing student performance across different education systems because human judgment is error-prone. Decades of evidence show that the quality of teachers' tests pales compared with more rigorously developed large-scale tests. When used for purposes of accountability, standardized tests can provide more objective and less ambiguous evidence. In one international study that looked at the effects of dropping and reintroducing standardized tests in 29 industrialized countries, academic standards declined, students studied less, curricula became incoherent and selection and promotion became arbitrary after standardized tests were dropped. Contention Two: Standardized exit exams improve education for future generations. Jack O'Connell, 2007. The exit exam has been responsible for significant improvements in our schools, targeted specifically at our neediest students. The California High School Exit Exam has helped our neediest students as much if not more than any public school reform in the last 30 years. Because of the exit exam, more individual attention and more resources have been devoted to struggling students than ever before. And they are working. The California High School Exit Exam is not perfect. But it gives us accountability, and shines a powerful light on our students who need the most help. It has led to more help for those students than anything that has come before it. Contention Three: The majority of students pass the exams. Jack O'Connell, 2007. Results show that an estimated 90.8 percent of graduating seniors have passed both the English-language arts and the mathematics portions of the exam, including an additional 1,759 students who passed the May administration of the exam. "While I will not be satisfied until all California students are successful in gaining the skills measured by the exit exam, I am pleased that the achievement gap is narrowing," O'Connell said. "It is clear that all students are working hard to gain the critical skills necessary for a diploma and for survival in today's global economy. I credit the exit exam for focusing both students and schools on meeting this challenge. We need to sustain this effort until the achievement gap is erased completely." The test is an important benchmark in ensuring that students will be successful in meeting the challenges they will face either in college or the workplace. If they are not able to meet the standards of the exam, how can we, as parents and educators, expect them to be successful in college or the workplace? We need to make sure that they are adequately prepared for the world beyond high school. For all these reasons and more, I respectfully urge a negative ballot in today's debate & will now move to my opponene't case. Go to my opponent's value of Societal Welfare. We agree societal welfare is a good thing, so this debate will be determined upon who upholds it better. The reason my opponet cannot possibly uphold societal welfare is because there are no standards in the Affirmative world. There needs to be a basic level of education before we can ever hope to go on to higher education. If there are cracks in the basic education level, one's higher education levels will fall through as well. In the Negative world, I am ensuring students get that basic level of education, while the Affirmative only hopes they will, thus I subsume my opponent's value. Next, let's move to my opponent's value criterion of Maximizing Positive Social Mobility. Now, my opponent says students will not have opporotunities, but what we have to see is they will have more opporotunities because of the fact that each individual will have the same, basic, equal level of education, thus we can ensure everybody has the opporotunity to prosper within society, and not just some people. Now, go to my Opponent's Contention One, Sub Point A. Firstly, I would like to point out that it is not the test's fault that these students are socioeconomically disadvantaged. That is a problem out of anyone's control, thus not a fault in the test itself. Secondly, these tests will just prove advantageous for these groups because it will ensure that everybody, including the socioeconomically disadvantaged get a basic level of education, and will not just be pushed out of high school. Let's move to my opponent's Contention One, Sub Point B. Through this, my opponent implies that females will fail the test. But would this mean that females should never take Standardized Tests due to the imperics my opponent has provided? This would be an inequity within schools, which the standardized exit exam solves for. Now let's look at my opponent's Contention One, Sub Point C. My opponent claims that the exit exams are strongly correlated with increased drop outs, but provides no justification. Just because drop out rates go up, doesn't nessecarily mean it's due to the exit exams. Also, it isn't the end of the world if you fail this test. You have the opporotunity to take it multiple times, so through this we see fairness because the students are not required to pass the first time. If they fail the first time, they can look over what they missed and improve it for next time. Next, let's go to my opponent's Contention Two. Now, my opponent tells you all these horrible things are going to happen if we implement these exit exams, but what we have to see is that there is no justification behind these claims. These people will not lose their social mobility, because as I have previously stated, just because you don't pass the first time does not mean you are denied a diploma. As my C-3 states, most students pass these exams with an additional 1, 759 students passing the second time around. And even if you do fail it to the point where you are held back, this doesn't ensure you will drop out. So, for all these reasons and more, I strongly urge a negative vote in today's debate. |
29 | 8cb8cca-2019-04-18T14:18:22Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | European countries should restrict immigration. 1. Most migrants aren"t even from Syria, and have not been affected by the Syrian civil war. They are pretending to be Syrian in order to get to Western Europe.According to the Serbian boarder police 90% of those arriving in Macedonia claim they are Syrian even though they have no documents to prove it. The chief of the European Union border agency Frontex said that trafficking in fake Syrian passports has increased. According to the EU only 21% of migrants coming to Europe are Syrian. http://ec.europa.eu... Many others who are Syrian or are fleeing conflict in another country aren"t refugees. A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. They were refugees when they left Syria and came to Turkey. They were safe in Turkey but have left and are coming to Western Europe for a higher standard of living. This makes them economic migrants. 72 % of the migrants are men. 15 % are women and 13% are children 2. Economics. Many immigrants come to European countries to abuse their welfare system. http://www.infowars.com... Economist Tino Sanandaji, immigrant, told Wente, that the "generous" country is facing huge problems, particularly when it comes to employment and crime "There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees," [Sanandaji] told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don"t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives. In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. "Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD," Mr. Sanandaji said. 3. Education Another point that Mr. Sanadaji brings up is education. 45 per cent of children in Sweden who do poorly on tests are immigrants. https://en.wikipedia.org... according to Wikipedia 86 per cent of men in Syria and 73 percent of women in Syria and 79 per cent of the general population in Syria are literate. So European school kids will have to be in class rooms with other children who don"t speak their language, many of whom can"t even read or write"which will obviously be detrimental to the education systems in European countries. 4. Assimilation . Taking in thousands and thousands of people from a different country, with a different religion, a different culture and a different language all within a year is committing cultural suicide. When so many people come in a short period of time assimilation is nearly impossible. When you come to a country you assimilate to their standards, not the other way around. This is why many people were bothered when German school girls were told not to wear miniskirts to avoid attacks from migrants. http://www.infowars.com... http://www.i24news.tv... When Hungarian minster Viktor Orban made this point about assimilation and cultural preservation he was called a xenophobe. When Israel and Kuwait"s prime ministers made the same pints they were not shamed or called xenophobic. Appearing on Middle Eastern television, a Kuwaiti politician stated, "In the end you cannot accept people from a different ethnicity, culture and environment."http://www.infowars.com... There appears to be a double standard where European countries who have taken more people than they can handle are shamed for not taking enough but non European countries who"ve taken in 0 migrants aren"t shamed. 5. Crime. While most of the migrants have been peaceful, many were caught on camera assaulting Europeans. In one case they shouted "alauhu akbar f you" Also an eyewitness at the Italy-Austrian border she saw an elderly Italian woman grabbed by her hair and pulled from her car by a group of "aggressive young men" who wanted to steal the car to get to Germany, while others threw excrement at bystanders. Other compilation videos show African migrants tearing down traffic lights, eating people up and attacking stores. http://www.infowars.com.... Migrants were also caught on camera throwing rocks at Hungarians http://www.infowars.com.... Another video shows migrants in Macedonia refusing to take water from Red Cross workers. Another video migrants at a train station in Hungary throwing bottled water onto train tracks that was being handed out by police. Another video shows migrants robbing a Hungarian man who was attempting to equally distribute donated gifts http://www.infowars.com.... In a Danish refugee camp near Copenhagen an arab man stabbed a police officer https://www.washingtonpost.com... In the town of Kassel-Calden, near Frankfurt, Germany, groups of Pakistani and Albanian migrants attacked each other."Between 60 and 70 people were involved. They attacked each other with clubs and threw things at each other," a police spokesman reported, according to the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk... At an asylum center near Leipzig 200 Syrian and Afghan migrants attacked each other with table legs, bed frames and sticks after an argument over use of a bathroom. German police union official, Rainer Wendt, said violence between groups of illegal migrants in German hostels is common "We"ve been seeing this violence for weeks and even months," Wendt said . "Groups join forces based on ethnicity, religion or clan structures and attack each other with knives and even weapons they have made themselves." "Sunnis fight Shiites, there are Salafists of varying kinds" Women are being forced to wear veils. Men are forced to pray. Islamists want to impose their values." http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu... German police in Hemer reported that an Algerian Muslim had attacked an Eritrean Christian and his pregnant wife with a bottle. The pregnant woman was hospitalized http://www.presseportal.de... In a refugee area in Suhl, Germany, an Afghan man who had torn pages from a Koran was attack by a Syrian mob. The riot resulted in , 17 people being injured, including six police officera and members of the press. The mob ransacked the refugee center office and, the following day, smashed car windows and vandalized property. On the Greek Island of Lesbos , a group of 200 illegal immigrants attacked police and threw stones after they were not allowed to board a ferry to the mainland. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.infowars.com... http://www.breitbart.com... a female no borders activist was raped in a shower by Sudanese migrants. This incident is not nearly as bad as the one that happened in Germany a couple weeks before where a 7 year old German white girl was raped by a north African migrant in a park http://www.infowars.com... and tats just the recent crime committed by migrants in Europe recent crime done by migrants in Europe. 2012 figures show that Somalis were sentenced for crimes, including innumerable sexual assaults, almost ten times more often than those with Danish citizenship. More than half of all convicted rapists in Denmark have an immigrant background, according to official statistics, despite the fact that immigrants and their descendants account for less than 10 per cent of the populationSince it opened its doors in the mid 1970"s Sweden has become the rape capital of the west, with only the African nation of Lesotho recording more sexual assaults.Rapes in Sweden has risen by 1,472% since the mid-70"s, with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975. Last year, Swedish police also released a list of 55 "no go zones," mostly Muslim ghettos, where law enforcement and ambulance workers are at risk of violent attack. In 2013, Stockholm saw a wave of violent riots by mostly immigrant youth. Recently an investigation by Swedish newspaper Dala demokraten found that arab migrants are being promised "fre blonde Swedish girls" and tax payer funded luxury treatment if they pay people smugglers to help them reach Scandinavia http:/. In England Muslim gangs have abused white girls in several cities Muslim rape gangs also abused white girls in several cities. https://en.wikipedia.org...), https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...), https://en.wikipedia.org... ttps://en.wikipedia.org... |
4 | 8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | should schools use corporal punishment I will begin my side by saying corporal punishment is highly unnecessary, and doesn't do anything besides implant more negative behavior. Also since you didn't specify what type of education, I must assume all grade levels(excluding college), and thus we will debate on that. First off, corporal punishment is a unnecessary act, and the schools have no right to hit a kid without consent of parents. Also since you never specified whether school had the parent consent. You have so many more punishments such as : Detention, sat. detention, in school suspension, suspension, and expulsion. I don't see why you need to enter the fist of "justice" into the picture. Secondly, striking the child isn't going to solve anything, all it is going to do is embarrass the child, and cause possible physcological problems. Also if the child is in high school and gets hit, then he or she may strike back. Also the allowing of corporal punishment in school leads to child abuse. What stops a teacher for beating the kid, or a student beating a teacher back in self defense. Thirdly, violence does not belong in the classroom. It does not help the education, and in fact probably harms it. The child will be more afraid of the teacher, they won't pay attention to the lesson plan. Also most associations are against corporal punishment, the one that caught my eye was The American School Counsellor Association. Hmmm, counsellors against the beating of children, didn't see that coming. If the people who are suppose to watch and help guide our children oppose why should it be used? |
22 | b0114b5-2019-04-18T15:15:16Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways Animals of course have rights too, but in the world we live in today, people are more likely to worry about humans then animals, sadly. Some may say that animals are able to make decisions about whether they wish to die. For certain species, if an individual is badly injured, the animal in most cases chooses to leave the flock and die more quikcly by avoiding eating. For humans it is not black and white. We all experience the difficulty of make a choice, especially in a young age. An already overburdened patient who are not yet old enough to even consider ending their own life. Children and young people, even those who are suffering from an illness, have so much hope and faith in the doctors and in the people around them, that they cannot handel the idea of dying already. It is a huge psychological burden. If someone were asked to choose regarding Euhanasia it would conflict with said person"s self-preservation and put major pressure on someone so young. Many countries are discussing that if they allow Euthanasia, an age limitation must be in place to insure that the number of youths who apply for help to die will not increase in the folowing years. No one can guarantee you that death is the best solution since we cannot ask patients who have chosen to die. A child, or teenager, finds no real assurance from physicians or anyone around them when faced with the choice of life or death. Of course parents have the authority to make decisions on the behalf of their children. But is it really all right for a mother and a father to allow the doctor to give their a child a lethal injection, when the child is not even old enough to understand, or lacks the knowledge of what is about to happen? Making children go through the choice of Euthanasia, or even as far as being killed without consulting with their parents, are not acceptable. It is completely fine with those long answers since I am a student too and am supposed to discuss this. |
22 | a577535f-2019-04-18T17:52:25Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Nonsensical argument debate "I do not accept"Youre off to a good start ;DRESOLUTION: PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO CHOICE SHOULD BE SHOT INTO SPACELets begin.... My first argument that people who are pro choice should be shot into space is that it was decreed they should be by supreme leader George Optimus Prime Lincoln the fourth, back before food was invented. He made this decree to fight the population shortage that crippled the nation during our decade long war with the Cricket people of Titan-Pluto which was started over a territorial rights to Jack Nicholson's sperm. The cricket people wanted his sperm because it is the only substance known to ward off the crickets natural predators, dead people, but humanity needed it because it was the only know cure to testicular elephantitis, a disease that causes people to drag their balls across the faces of old statues of the Virgin Mary. If pro-choice people were shot into space then the war would not have been lost, the cricket people would have been killed off, and statues of the virgin mary would have not been vandalized with sweaty balls.The second argument for the resolution is that pro-choice people have been scientifically proven to not have souls. When pro-choicers are exposed to the color purple, it will cause them to recite the pledge of allegiance backwards while at the same time they will try dipping their balls into scalding hot coffee, which is the act of someone with no soul. This was first observed in the great coffee suicide of 2103, when in Boston Kentucky North Carolina a coffee manufactory had redesigned its interior purple, causing all 14 pro choice workers to jump into a holding tank of scalding coffee. All of them perished, including a pet mouse that was gnawing at the scrotum of one of the workers who hadnt noticed there was a rodent in his pants at the time. Pro-choicers worship rodents as gods by the way. Since its a fact that pro-choicers have no soul, it is morally acceptable to use them as ammunition and shoot them into space. The third argument for shooting pro-choicers into space is that it would bring an end to the eon-long conflict between them and the Spanish-Israeli regime that currently occupies Jennifer Lopez. Jenniefer Lopez was the pride of the Pro-choice confederacy, but then everything changed when the fire nation attacked. Only the avatar, master of all four elements could stop them, but when the pro-choicers needed him most, he vanished. The Spanish-Israeli's occupied Jennifer Lopez (both in territory and sexually) and were able to fend off the Pro-choice armada for decades, thanks largely to the invention of the sh*t cannon, a cannon that shoots tons and tons of sh*tty Justin Bieber music at the pro-choicers. So even though the Pro-choicers have the right to Jennifer Lopez, shooting all pro-choicers into space would be beneficial because it would end the pro-choice-Spanish-Israeli conflict by literally removing pro-choicers from the problem.... And shooting them into space. The final argument for shooting pro-choice people into space is because space is horrendously underpopulated. Now sure, a lot of people dont live in space because of Space's strict gun control laws, but Earth has enough problems already! Over population, water tainted with alien dildo's, Snooki getting pregnant for the 30th time (the father was a goat, I say was because it committed suicide after learning what it did), are all reasons why Earth should shoot its problems into space, starting of course with pro-choice people. Earth is overpopulated, pro-choice people dont have souls, and space is out there doing nothing, all of these are legit reasons for why pro-choice people should be shot into space. |
1 | 7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00000-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | why should teachers be armed -_- did you even bother to read my last argument...? I know it's sad and everything but its already passed and i already thought of a plan that could take the status quo's place (... that I already said in my last argument) |
27 | 90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00007-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws ----- The following is taken from my website, which can be found here: http://politicaljoe.net... ---- The idea of gun laws is very similar to Communism believe it or not. Communism at it's idea stage is a very, very great idea. But as with a lot of good ideas, it is often so that the idea is oblivious to the fact that humans are evil. As so, humans will find a way to manipulate that idea to make it a bad system. Communism, again, was one such idea that got screwed over by our inner-evilness. Communism is an extremely complex idea that many have written thousand-page theses on, but I want to focus on one aspect of it, that aspect being how people would work and consume. Communism basically took out money in a sense, and told people to work their hardest at their line of expertise. Then, if you needed anything, you would ask for it, and you would get it. Again, I'd like to state that this is way oversimplified. So for instance, if you were a farmer, you would produce crops your best and give your crops to people who needed it. Conversely, if you needed something, per say a car, (and communism taught not to over consume) you would ask someone who made cars to give you one. This in my opinion, is a great idea as an idea. However, people are evil, and corruption begins. People had to wait months to get car a because of all the under-dealings, and outside of this aspect of Communism, all hell broke loose. This is exactly the same with gun control laws. It predicts that if we make it so hard to get a gun, the bad guys will not be able to get guns, and we all can live under harmony. But we as a race are not quite bunny-sunshine. The bad guys would not just stop being evil, they would just start getting guns from the already hugely existent gun underground. And that underground would grow and grow and what else? Grow. Sort of like illegal immigrants and fake ID's, but that's a totally different story. Take for instance the Temperance Movement. They were a Christian movement in the early 1900s that successfully banned alcohol in the United States of America. They actually got the United States Congress to pass the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, which only got being rejected by Rhode Island. Thank God it was short-lived being repealed thirteen years later by the twenty-first amendment, or else the damage it cause would have been quite multiplied. The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, subsequently created such a massive alcohol underground, run by the Italian Mafia just for your information, that it became a joke to get drunk, thus forcing Congress to repeal it. However, in those thirteen years alcoholism increased fanatically, and countless thousands died due to alcoholism just because a group of Christian women thought it'd be a good idea. And that brings me back to the corruption of ideas. Gun control laws may be a great idea, but looking at historical evidence, it will, and has already become quite corrupted. In fact, according to a Time Magazine article entitled, "Darkness Falls" by Nancy Gibbs, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained gun. Want more? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms during the 1990's, reported that only 7% of armed career criminals obtained firearms from licensed gun shops. The simple fact is this. With or without gun control laws, bad guys will always find guns to use, and if they're going to get them anyways, I for one want to arm myself from them. In fact, according to an article entitled "Recent School Shootings" published in 1997 by the Washington Post, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. However, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. Imagine how many lives he saved. So, some of you might be asking by now, am I implying that more gun control laws mean more violence, and that less gun control laws means less? No. I'm saying that. According to The National Center for Policy Analysis and safestreetsdc.com, in 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 200% while their population dropped about 15%. It got so bad, D.C. was known as the "murder capital" of the United States. Switzerland practices total conscription, and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world according to a 1996 Switzerland Census and just wide know knowledge. Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987 and between 1987 and 1996, homicide rates dropped 36%, firearm homicide rate dropped 37%, and handgun homicide rate dropped 41%. New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966 and two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. Even using Hitler as an example, when he banned all guns in Germany... well you know what happened. So in conclusion, Gun Control laws, just like Communism and the Eighteenth Amendment, are great ideas as ideas. But humans are evil maniacal beings who love to manipulate. When an idea does not include prevention of evilness in it of itself, the idea will get corrupted. Gun Control laws will be more, but have already been corrupted as evident by all the statistics. So I ask this, why are we adding upon the already 20,000 gun laws we already have in the good ol' US of A? |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00010-000 | Should social security be privatized? | The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition's dire prediction of the collapse of social security's financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_... |
9 | c3935a3a-2019-04-18T18:24:47Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Hats should be allowed in school buildings Because swearing and giving the people the finger are always disrespectful while wearing hats is only disrespectful inside. Hat day is done usually as a fundraiser and entices people by changing the status quo for a short time. Hats in themselves are not disrespectful but are only so when worn inside of government buildings. Also, your survey is useless because a) you could have made it up and b) it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. You dropped my other two points as well and merely focused on the disrespectful aspect of it. The school has provided good reason for banning hats (to eliminate distractions and rivalries) and has excersized their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with that. |
17 | 6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless. |
19 | ea2e99e5-2019-04-18T18:31:36Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal Gay marriage should be legal. By making it legal this leads to a change in the definition of what marriage is. It has to be changed because it is a social problem. Making gay marriage legal is being proposed as a solution to the problem. Since this is the case then the social view on marriage will change. I am not changing the debate. I really hope this makes it clear for you. Rebuttal 1. Religious people are still part of society and it is society that is forcing this change. Because of beliefs it is generally religious people that are against gay marriage however this is also changing shown by my first point. There is a growing support for gay marriage and there are less and less reasons to be against gay marriage. 2. Yes I will prove that most people support gay marriage. "Right now, the most recent gay marriage poll comes from CBS News in July 2011. It showed that most people support gay marriage rights. According to the poll, 53% say the government should legally recognize same-sex marriages."[1] "An ABC News poll conducted in July 2011 showed similar results. According to that poll, 51% support gay marriage 45% are against it. 4% are unsure."[1] "35. Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? Apr. 9-10 Apr. 23-26 Dec. 19-21 June 26-29 2011 2009 2008 2008 Should be recognized as valid 51% 44% 44% 44% Should not be recognized as valid 47% 54% 55% 53% No opinion 2% 2% 1% 3%"[2] So as you can see not only does the majority support gay marriage that support is growing rapidly. 3. This is the point of having laws. You're not allowed to do something because the government says it is wrong. Take ethnic discrimination in America. A very relevant example would be the anti-miscegenation laws which "remained in force in many US states until 1967" [3]. These laws prohibited any interracial marriages from taking place. Nowadays interracial marriages are common and there are no social stigmas attached. The law said it was wrong and people took the view that inter-racial love was wrong. Now that the laws are changed this view is dying out. 4."You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support." See rebuttal point three. "But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole." So when people are not forced to drugs unnecessarily (see my last argument) because they think that the way they love is wrong this is not a benefit for society as a whole? When young people stop feeling the need to commit suicide because they think their love is wrong his is not a benefit for society? 5. Pro- gay marriage should be legal which would make it equal to that of "traditional marriage". Civil unions are not the same as marriage because they do not carry the same social status and it is the social status that is damaging which is why gay marriage should be recognised by the law. 6. See first paragraph of argument. 7. I have actually proved that it has benefits for society. You have not proved that it is harmful for society. Your attempts at that are rebutted below. How it benefits other societies is still a valid point as I have shown it has an affect on how other nations view America therefore still has an affect on American society. 8. "people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets." Family members will never be allowed to marry because inbreeding is biologically dangerous. Pets are not consenting adults so can't get married. 9. Your own definitions state that the only difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal recognition. They are the same thing so they should be called the same thing. 10. In what way are we subsidizing their marriage? We are giving them the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage which they have a right to. http://www.gaymarriageresearch.com... [1] http://i2.cdn.turner.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] |
41 | 49eee388-2019-04-18T18:43:18Z-00009-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | The United States National Debt is the Amount of Money the United States has Created not Borrowed My position is that the United States National Debt is not how much the United States has "borrowed", but it is how much the United States has created. Reasons why I believe this. #1) If you look at the Federal Reserves balance sheet http://www.federalreserve.gov... You will see that all currency in circulation is a liability to the Federal Reserve and the asset the Federal Reserve uses for this liability is debt (aka securities). #2) If you look at the balance sheet for all Commercial Banks in America http://www.federalreserve.gov... You will notice that all bank credit has a corresponding liability. So all loans and all deposits are accounted for. #3) In 2010 alone, over $3.8 trillion of the National Debt matured. This figure is not included in Govt expenditures. The only thing that exists on Govt spending is the amount they credit bank accounts (aka create) and interest on the national debt. If you look at the past 40 years since we officially left the gold standard, the national debt has never decreased. Not once in 40 years. This reasserts my theory that the national debt is the base of money that can not be destroyed. #4) So if you put all this together, and you realize that every dollar is someones liability whether it's the banks or the Federal Reserve, then paying the principal on maturing national debt with tax dollars would be impossible because this would create a dollar that does not have a corresponding liability. The dollar would be "in float". My position states that deficit spending needs to be "borrowed" because that money does not exist in our system and the debt instrument that corresponds to this "borrowing" is actually where money/assets are created in America. Therefore the National Debt is not how much the country has borrowed but how much the country has actually created. For the perfect analogy, the National Debt is basically the amount of gold we would have in the Gold Standard. The way this is created is through accounting by various entities within our system, specifically the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Primary Dealers. In fact 70% of United States debt is purchased by Primary Dealers who are required to participate in every treasury action. The Primary Dealers are using bank money to purchase the treasury's which creates an affect where Govt spending actually occurs before money is debited out of the system. For those that understanding basic accounting principles, this is how the process looks when a Primary Dealer purchases a treasury security from the United States Treasury. Bank A (Primary Dealer) Initial Balance Sheet Assets | Liabilities Reserves - 10,000 | Deposits - 10,000 The Govt issues $5000 in debt to pay for a widget. Bank A purchases the $5000 in debt. The new balance sheet looks like Assets | Liabilities Reserves - 10,000 | Deposits - 10,000 Treasury - 5,000 | TTL Note Account - 5,000 You notice how the Primary Dealers bank account now has an additional asset, the Treasury, and it's corresponding liability is an account at the Treasury known as a TTL Note Account. Now the Govt issues $5,000 to pay for the widget. Bank A's balance sheet now looks like Assets | Liabilities Reserves 15,000 | Deposits 15,000 Treasury 5,000 | TTL Note Acct 5,000 As you can see the private sector receives Government spending before the Government has debited our account. So therefore, deficit spending adds money to the system that eventually is used to pay our taxes and invest in Govt securities in the secondary market. In conclusion, my main theory is that the United States National Debt can not be paid off by current accounting principles and that the National Debt is actually the amount of money that has been created in the United States of America. |
30 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00000-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal You are not better than umar but who knows. You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than umar but who knows.You are not better than |
35 | f47d4ad1-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00003-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. I'll start out by saying I agree with my opponent's definition. I'll use this round to address each of the studies my opponent has cited in their case.Survey StudyThere are a couple reasons that this study does nothing to prove my opponent's point. Firstly, this is not a study over whether or not video games cause violence. It is a study over whether or not people believe video games cause violence. In the chart my opponent has provided, we can see that more people think video games cause violence than not. This argument can't be taken into account because it is a logical fallacy known as bandwagon. (assuming something is true because many people believe it is) The article linked by my opponent seemed to show that those who play video games are less worried about negative affects. So, it is quite obvious that this article is not actually claiming that violence in video games is harmful. The article ends with this... "It is possible that concerns about games could fade away in much the same way that fears about rock music, comic books, and radio dramas dissolved when these forms of entertainment gained wider acceptance."Time StudyThis study notes that video games (even if played for a short period of time) can cause permanent changes in the brain and aggression. (Note: My opponent says violence, but the article says aggression) I showed in R2 that violence and aggression are not actually the same thing. Aggression is an intention, violence is an action. Moreover, nothing about this study suggests it was the violence in the video games that resulted in the aggression. There is a good chance that the competitive factor so often found in violent video games was what caused such feelings of aggression among the children. American Psychological Association notes (after observing several studies), "More competitive games produced greater levels of aggressive behavior than less competitive games, no matter how much violence was in the games. (1)" Remember, my opponent must prove that violence factor in video games results in real-world violence. Fox News StudyThis study is very similar to the time study, so I'll go ahead and cross-apply what I said earlier. I would like to note that my opponent's source concedes that this study is flawed. The source says, "However, experts not involved with the study say that the research has flaws, and does not add anything meaningful to the debate over whether violent video games increase aggression, which has been a contentious issue."Grand Theft ChildhoodMy opponent cites a study that explains how 60% of middle schoolers that beat up someone played at least one M rated video game. I'd like to reference something I said in R2, "It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…" If a middle schooler is beating up their classmates, it is more likely to be because of the reasons I have listed. In order for this study to count, my opponent will need to explain exactly how, in this study, the violence factor of video games is contributing to this violence among kids.School Shooting StudyPage four of my opponent's source explains that many factors contribute towards school shootings and that not one factor is decisive. Here we can see that violence in video games alone does not cause such shootings to come about. Most likely, other factors are coming into play as I have shown in previous evidence. Just because a shooter plays violent video games doesn't mean that is what caused them to commit such a violent crime. Moreover, this resolution does say "in general." School shootings are very rare. Even if literally every school shooting was a result of violence in video games, this would not be enough to cause me to not fulfill my BoP.Video Game and Homicide CorrelationThis chart compares video game sales in Europe and America, as well as homicide in Europe and America. It important to realize that we don't know exactly what caused this correlation. My opponent has not proved that violence in video games directly have caused this link. This is a logical fallacy known as false cause. Essentially, this correlation could be caused by anything. For example, Europe and the US have different gun control policies, different laws, and different atmospheres. Anything could cause this correlation. In the chart I provided, I was not aiming to show a direct correlation, rather, I was aiming to show that video game sales certainly are not causing violence to go up.(1) https://www.apa.org... |
15 | e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00031-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences I have seen far too many "cruel, uncaring, unthoughtful, sadistic, etc." comments, pure hatred and direct insults. If that is how you conduct a debate, and bring up pathetic evidence, then take some debate classes. Would you, yourself, those who ask us to give ourselves to science, put yourself up for science? Would willingly put yourself in harm? It goes both ways. Or another point, how about the medical advances NOT just to humans but animals? Did you know animal testing for humans has subsequently led to advances TOWARDS animals? Did you know the procedures conducted on humans today are now conducted on animals? That we can extend not only the life of humans but other inferior animals? And did you also know about evolution and lifespans and generations? Or about diverging evolutionary points? Or that we share genes in common? Know about the Sonic Hedgehog gene? It gives the Hemingway cats an extra toe. It also causes fruit flies to grow legs instead of antennas. Did you know it also is found in humans? What about a gene in several breeds of dogs that causes their "wrinkles" and bouts of fever? Did you know it is also in humans? I could sit here and list countless biological and genetic similarities (tautologies for the win!) but it's extraneous to the point. The conditions are getting better in which animals are being treated. Did you know about the Thee Rs for animal research? I doubt it. Have you forgotten all the medical advances of human history? They were due to sacrifices on behalf of animals. Did you know you wouldn't have most likely lived past the age of 13 without testing and research on animals? You'd be susceptible to diseases and more that have been all been eradicated. But, and to be a ditz and klutz and go back a point or two, let's go to generational spans. Did you know the average generational span of an American of 25 years, due to women? Do you know it for dogs? Flies? Mice? Any other animal that is tested? Did you know that we can benefit more efficiently and effectively, not to mention quickly, from research on animals that have small generational time lines than humans? It also should be said that there are more test subjects and controlled environments for experiments with animals. I will stop here, not because I feel I will have won anything or persuaded, but it is tiring, this old debate. I love animals. I hate for them to undergo any pain or harmful conditions. But if I see more commercials for animal abuse than child abuse? Rape? It pisses me off. The same goes for here. I would, even if ignorantly, allow an animal to die to save one of my own species. Especially if it was my child. I originally wanted to be a vet. Now I am a pre-med student. Not much different. I still would love to be a vet and take care of animals. But my passion for the lives of humans is greater. So instead of thinking how cruel it is that people use animals for medical and scientific research, think about how more cruel (to you) it'd be if they hadn't. You'd not be alive right now. The advances we made to allow you to live were based off, but not solely, animals. (P.S. I am a vegetarian. Wanna guess why?) Final statement: The 3 Rs. Read up. Google is your friend. |
31 | f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Dear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance."No, being excessively fat, or obese is. "The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car."The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. "This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - "Britain's obesity death rate" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is "GROSSLY FAT" i.e. "RIDICULOUSLY FAT". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese."This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused."Obesity is not a paradox"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate."Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias."Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either."Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to "preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - "I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - "In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight."Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :) |
7 | 8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote First of all, I am perfectly clear with the U.S. ideas, since i have lived there for a substantial amount of time. Second, the resolution is not U.S. specific, it states a "democratic society" the U.S. however cannot be a model of this situaiton becuase it does not allow all members of their society to vote. The U.S. does not allow children to vote; who could be more educated than most voters. With this being stated, the U.S. cannot be a consideration for it does not represent all of the indiaviduals in a society. Without the U.S., my opponent cannot find a specific democratic society to prove his arguement while i have proven that the aff must prove this in any society which he has not. My opponent believes that prison always rehabilitates however, there are always circumstances of this not being true. My opponent's rebuttle to my first contention just soley address the U.S. system; which is inconsisnent because the U.S. is not a true democracy so my first contention stands. My opponent's rebuttle to my second contention does not realize that my second contention simply states that the Affirmative must prove this consistent in all societies, while he only sticks to the U.S., which is not a pure democratic society. My opponent's rubttle to my third contention is that it is contridictory, which i concede. So i my 3rd contention doesnt stand. My opponent's rebuttle to my 4th contention is that i am soley focused on semantics and ought= logical consequence. However he did not show how the variation of ought in serious situation is invalid. So either, my opponent finds this resolution unserious, or does not understand what oweing means. My opponent lacks any sort of framework, and offers no suggestions on why felons should vote. My second contention states the burdens the Aff faces which is left unaddressed. With these ideals in mind, I negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. |
36 | edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is a sport Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play. |
48 | 2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement |
23 | 41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00000-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Should assisted suicide be legal Thank you. I liked this debate and my con against my opponent is it would lower our population and make family's more depressed. |
16 | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2]. "U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a 'blockbuster' drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/ |
22 | f9a4e585-2019-04-18T11:11:59Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Trumps wall isn't the best solution to illegal immigration I look forward to a good debate. first argument response-The reason for the increase for visa-stayed immigrants is for Democrats defunding ICE. second argument response- ok, Many people can just say, Oh they can build tunnels. Let's look at statistics "Part of our area is covered with some fencing on our east side. That accounts for about 6 percent of our traffic, " Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz told journalists during President Trump"s January 10 visit to Rio Grande Valley, Texas. "Where we have no fencing, Over 90 percent of our traffic occurs in those areas. " A day earlier, Ortiz added, 450 people were apprehended in the unfenced sector, Including 133 from such non-Latin nations as India, Pakistan, And Romania. " Some 560, 000 illegals were caught astride San Diego and Tijuana in Fiscal Year 1992 when a border wall was installed there. By FY 2017, The Border Patrol says it snared 26, 086 "" down 95. 3 percent. " A barrier between the Tucson, Ariz. , Sector and Nogales, Mexico, Was erected in 2000. That year"s 616, 346 arrests plunged to 38, 657 in FY 2017 "" down 93. 7 percent. A fence installed at the border between Yuma, Arizona, And Los Algodones, Mexico brought apprehensions from 138, 438 in FY 2005 to 12, 847 in FY 2017 "" down 90. 7 percent. "Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, " then""acting homeland security secretary Elaine Duke wrote in USA Today in August 2017, "and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross "" often areas without fencing. " " A 150-mile barrier between Israel and southern Egypt cut the number of illegal-alien entrants from 17, 000 in 2011 to 43 in 2013, After the fence"s completion, Israel"s Ministry of the Interior states "" down 99. 7 percent. " Bulgaria erected a barrier on its Turkish perimeter in 2013. That year"s 11, 000 illegal crossings dropped to 4, 000 in 2014 "" down 63. 6 percent. " Just as British Gibraltar dangles from Spain"s underside, Spanish Ceuta and Melilla surf atop Morocco. Multiple fences and barriers there sliced 2014"s 2, 100 arrests at the Spanish-territorial/Moroccan frontier to 2015"s 100 "" down 95. 2 percent. Former and current senators Joe Biden, Tom Carper, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, And Ron Wyden were among the 26 Democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It authorized 700 miles of double fence. All 54 Senate Democrats voted unanimously in June 2013 for $46 billion in border security, Including 350 miles of new steel fence. This is a case of Trump-Derangement Syndrome. " https://www. Nationalreview. Com/2019/01/border-walls-democrat-partisan-politics/ The Point and argument is- Walls Work There have been multiple cases of Government taking private land for a greater cause. New Jersey Turnpike just to name one. The people are paid back. The yearly keep up for the wall will be cheaper than original border security. Instead of focusing on agents to pay, To monitor, Etc, Etc. We have drones and a fundamental barrier. Sidenote: Pelosi's shutdown has cost more than the wall itself and she has a wall around her mansion. She takes eight-day trips to other countries during a shutdown. Now the Biggest factor everybody forgets: Drugs Drugs make up 80% of gun crime and are a growing issue. More Americans died from drugs in the past 3 years than all the Americans who died in Vietnam-a 20 year conflict. "Data on drug seizures at the U. S. Border indicate an alarming volume of trafficking taking place in recent years. Since 2009, Heroin seizures at the southwestern border have almost tripled, While meth seizures quintupled through 2014. Worse yet, Cocaine and marijuana remain two of the most commonly seized drugs along our southern borders, Equating to millions of pounds seized by U. S. Border Patrol. Since 2012, The number of traffickers apprehended at U. S. Borders has steadily increased from 364, 768 to nearly 500, 000 in 2014. From 2012 to 2015 the U. S. Border Patrol has seized more than: 8. 2 million lbs. Of marijuana 32, 600 lbs. Of cocaine 34, 000 ounces of heroin 17, 600 lbs. Of methamphetamine Recently, Border Customs released a report saying that they busted the biggest fetanlyol crossing ever. The substance was enough to kill 100 MILLION people. 90% of heroin comes from our Southern Border. In 2010, The FBI released a statement detailing the southwestern border and Mexico"s involvement in the illicit drug trade within the United States. At the time, Mexico was the No. 1 foreign supplier of marijuana. While Mexico produces no cocaine, The cartels do move Colombian cocaine through South and Central America into the U. S. Through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of methamphetamine. The country has labs established on both sides of the border that are controlled by Mexican drug cartels. Although Asia and the Middle East were the largest producers of heroin, 39% of heroin identified by DEA signature programs originated from Mexico, Making the southwest border the source for many heroin overdoses west of the Mississippi River. Today, The data show the majority of marijuana drug trafficking still takes place along the southwest border. The coastal borders (Miami, New Orleans, Ramey) see a great deal of traffic but the emphasis is largely on marijuana and cocaine, Suggesting the coastal borders are secondary channels largely for Colombian cartels that push these primary drugs from South America. The government works tirelessly to counter the influx of illicit drugs, With drug trafficking falling under federal law and carrying a felony sentence ranging anywhere from five years to life in prison. Any individual can be charged with trafficking if authorities believe there is intent to sell. Charges can also be escalated to distribution depending on the quantity of drugs found. Data from CPB. Org collected since 2012 shows that border patrol and government agencies are doing an exceptional job at slowing the importation of illicit drugs into the U. S. At our southern borders. Texas and Arizona hold the highest rate of seizures, Totaling more than 7 million pounds of drugs seized by authorities from 2012 to 2014. This region has required a focused effort because South America has long been a primary source for cocaine and marijuana. Unfortunately, Despite the high volume of seizures, Drugs are still finding their way across and have a profound impact in many states along southern and coastal borders. In 2014 alone, California had the highest incidences of drug-related deaths at 4, 521. It was followed closely by Florida (2, 634) and Texas (2, 601). Arizona, However, Is an exception; with the highest seized drug volume and only 1, 211 drug-related deaths in 2014. This is a clear indication that search and seizure by U. S. Border Patrol and local authorities have been highly effective in that region. While the volume of drugs flowing into the U. S. Through northern borders is considerably less, With fewer recorded seizures, There still remains a threat in those regions. Data shows us that some northern states are hit just as hard by drug trafficking. In 2014, Drug-related deaths in some areas of the north rivaled those of southern border states including Ohio (2, 744 deaths), Pennsylvania (2, 732 deaths) and New York (2, 300 deaths). Search and seizure programs have effectively stopped millions of pounds of illicit drugs from entering the U. S. , But there"s clearly more to be done to protect the youth of America and limit the volume of drugs traveling deeper into our cities. The majority of drugs appear to travel by land, With 59% of total drugs seized attributed to Border Patrol efforts in the U. S. And abroad. Over the years these efforts have forced smugglers to turn to maritime routes to move illicit drugs around the globe. ' https://drugabuse. Com/featured/drug-trafficking-across-borders/ I look forward to your response |
24 | dffa7f2f-2019-04-18T16:02:52Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Raise Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners First, I would like to lay out the criteria by which I will fulfill my burden. I will articulate the facts of my case and demonstrate how it fulfills these three criteria in the later rounds due to space constraints. 1. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is "the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people" (1). I will be arguing that raising taxes on the top 1 percent of Americans will provide the maximal good to the vast majority of the country. 2. Fairness I will be making the case that it simply isn"t fair that so much wealth and influence has been amassed by the top 1 percent of Americans, and a more equitable distribution of wealth, as we had in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, would be preferable. 3. Economic Sense This criterion will be the crux of my case. I will argue that not only is income and wealth inequality both unfair and immoral, but economically toxic. Therefore, it is in our economic interest to reduce it, one way of which is to raise taxes. C1) The Tax Cut Deception We"ve been told that we must cut taxes for the "most productive" because they are the ones who create the jobs. This, however, is a bold-faced lie. There is a wide body of academic research demonstrating that this is false. S1) Tax Cuts Don"t Work I will first point out a paper from the Congressional Research Service, examining tax rates since 1945,which proves my point. Note the conclusion: "The results of the analysis in this report suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top statutory tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. " (2) The conclusion has been echoed in several other papers. Note this paper from Andrew Fieldhouse: "Analysis of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth"private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity"nor on overall economic growth rates. " (3) Fieldhouse provided some further insight, giving us an idea of what the tax rates would need to be for there to be any negative ramifications for economic growth: "Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2012. This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate. " (3) As he explains, tax rates could be much higher then they are today, and the economy would continue to grow. Fieldhouse draws largely on Diamond and Says, who weigh in on what the optimal tax rates would be: "[T]he optimal top tax rate using the current taxable income base. .would be `4;* = 1/(1 1.5. " 0.57). = 54 percent, while the optimal tax rate using a broader income base with no deductions would be `4; * = 1/(1 1.5. " 0.17). = 80 percent. Taking as fixed state and payroll tax rates, such rates correspond to top federal income tax rates equal to 48 percent and 76 percent, respectively. " (4) Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has also weighed: "During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion " as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day " growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It"s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners" share of the nation"s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 " the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. " (5) As we can see, there is no reason to believe that cutting taxes is at all economically beneficial. S2) Historical Precedent Let's review this graph from Business Insider shedding light on what the historical precedent of statutory tax rates in this country (6): Of course, it would be remiss to not to key on, also, on effective tax rates: As we can see, effective as well as marginal tax rates on the affluent have been falling. In fact, they have never been as low as they are now at any time in the post-WWII era. Why, then, must we have more tax cuts? If they haven't worked before, and aren't working now, why must we buy into the myth that we must again pursue them? In fact, tax rates from 1945 to 1980 never fell below 70 percent, and were in fact as high as 92 percent, and yet the economy boomed. How can that be the case if we are to slash tax rates in order to generate prosperity? The claim is a flat-out lie. S3) Impact on Economic Inequality Now that we understand the precedent of tax rates, let's review these rates in context: How about we examine relative changes in wealth distribution from about the 1980s onward? This is a graph from the Stanford Center on Poverty and inequality: As we can see, right around the Reagan revolution, the very affluent began to do extremely well, whereas others began to do progressively worse. For instance, productivity has increased 80 percent from 1979 to 2009, but median wages have been nearly flat and in fact have fallen since the crisis according the U. S. Census Bureau. Since the recovery of 2009, 95 of income gains went to the top 1 percent. The Fieldhouse paper, the paper by Diamond and Saez, the paper by the CRS and much more attribute tax cuts to inequality. A large reason for this, as Thomas Pikkety has written about, is that capital income has been concentrated at the top, allowing the very affluent not only to escape taxation -- since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than annual income -- and accumulate wealth much faster than people who spend almost everything they earn (i. e. , poor people). Examine the following graph (8): What this shows us it that in recent years capital income -- rates for which have been slashes significantly over the past 15 years, and which has long been taxed at lower rates than earned income (why, for instance, Mitt Romney only paid about a 14 percent tax rate) -- has been increasingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. Pressman elucidates Pikketty's case as to why this is a problem and why we should care (9): "Piketty makes the case that inequality tends to rise in developed capitalist economies as a result of three empirical facts. First, a slow annual growth rate (1 percent, maybe close to 2 percent). Second, returns on wealth of around 5 percent per year (as has existed over long stretches of history). And third, the fact that the distribution of wealth is more concentrated than the distribution of income. This being the case, it follows that those with lots of wealth will see (on average) their annual gains (or their income) rise around 5 percent each year, while those without much wealth will see their incomes (on average) grow only 1 percent or so annually (the growth rate of the economy). Income inequality rises as does wealth inequality. " There's much more to the argument, however. Income inequality is the United States is far worse than the vast majority of developed countries, worse only than Chile, Mexico, and Turkey, according to a 2013 report by the OECD (10). Examine the following graph: Let's examine these figures in context, though. How does this relate to tax rates? Simple. Examine the following graph (11), also from the OECD: The only two countries with lower tax burdens -- note that these are a representation of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP than the US are Chile and Mexico; note that that Turkey's tax burden is only half a percentage point above the United States. Andrea Louise Campbell writes the following: "Compared with other developed countries, the United States has very low taxes, little redistribution of income, and an extraordinarily complex tax code" (11). Now, why should we care about this? There certainly are moral arguments, and appeal to Rawlsian ethics or utilitarianism could conceivably balance out my case. However, there are broader problems: we're all worse off collectively due to income inequality. As the following graph demonstrates, there is a negative correlation between income inequality and GDP per capita (12): Why is this so? Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz explains (13). He argues that it hinders tax receipts, the middle class's ability to spend to restore economic recovery, stifles innovation by promoting asymmetries as it pertains to educational attainment, and it is consistent with more frequent boom-and-bust cycles. For the final point, he noted that income inequality wasn't as bad as it is today since the 1920s, which culminated in the Great Depression. I'm now out of character space. Back to CON. Sources: (1) . http://tinyurl.com... (2) . http://tinyurl.com... (3) . http://tinyurl.com... (4) . http://tinyurl.com... (5) . http://tinyurl.com... (6) . http://tinyurl.com... (7) . http://tinyurl.com... (8) . http://tinyurl.com... (9) . http://tinyurl.com... (10) . http://tinyurl.com... (11) . http://tinyurl.com... (12) . http://tinyurl.com... (13) . http://tinyurl.com... |
23 | d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no. |
9 | 2fd4b8f3-2019-04-18T19:03:09Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms are good The first point that my opponent brings up is that school uniforms are too expensive, particularly as children grow out of them. This is simply not true, especially when the uniforms are basic. In fact, according to experts, uniform prices cannot drop any further while still maintaining a profit. In the UK, one can purchase an entire school uniform for less than �5, approximately $8 US currency. When compared to designer clothing, one can see that an entire outfit for $8 is much less likely to break the bank than a $50 pair of jeans. In addition to the already low price, most schools that require uniforms will provide them for free to students who are unable to afford them. My opponent also argues that individuality and freedom of expression are compromised by uniforms. My counter-point is: The clothes do not make the person. If a student cannot be an individual without altering his or her physical appearance, then that student has no real individuality to speak of. When everybody wears the same thing, personality tends to become the distinguishing factor. A student who is required to wear a uniform may indeed come out of the experience with more developed individuality in non-physical facets. Schools with uniforms are also required to make exceptions for clothing worn for religious beliefs and some even let students opt out of the uniform altogether. My opponent is under the impression that school uniforms will not cut down bullying among students, but with a little logical thought and statistics from previous studies I believe I can prove otherwise. First, my thought process. With school uniforms, students are unable to tell by sight which students are wealthy and which are poor. Since two of the main reasons students are bullied are appearance and social status, it follows that minimizing these factors in the school environment will also minimize bullying. Now for the statistics. The Long Beach unified school district in California mandated school uniforms in 1994 and in just 5 years saw significant results. Regarding the school system, crime rates dropped 91%, school suspensions dropped 90%, sex offences dropped 96%, and vandalism dropped 69%. These results may be in part because students feel more business-like in a uniform and are able to stay more school-oriented. I thank my opponent for his engaging argument and look forward to our next round of debate. My sources are as follows. http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.education.com... http://www.terrebonneparish.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.educationbug.org... |
4 | 2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00006-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals/New Arguments Round Four: Rebuttals, No Further Arguments |
45 | 86723672-2019-04-18T18:10:01Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S. I am hoping that this will turn out to be a very good debate. Contention 1: A fetus and Personhood. I will begin by first addressing the personhood of the unborn fetus. Now, my opponent is more then likely state that a fetus is a human and therefore, has the right to life and I would agree with him. A fetus is clearly a member of the biological species Homo Sapiens. However, just being human does not intell that one should automaditcally gets rights. I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. A fetus has none of these, thus it can not be treated like you and I. It can not be treated as the same as a baby that is newly born because a baby has the capabily to do these things and it has the brain capacity to be an individual and form a semi-complex thought. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life. Contention 2: Self-Ownership Everyone has self-ownership. To deny it would be to deny your selves, and neither I or my opponent would be in this debate because we would most likely be doing whatever our government told us to do. So with this stated, women have complete dominion over their body's. If something is wrong with it then they have the right to fix it, if they want to make it better or worse in their eyes then that is their choice, and furthermore, if a fetus forms there without their permission then they have the choice on whether or not she is wants to let it stay there whether it be a human/person or not. Despite whatever "right to life" "pro-lifers" may claim it possesses, it has not right to be where it is unwelcomed and invited. Fetus's are not intitled to women's bodies, they do not own women's bodies, and neither do governments. Contention 3: Overpopulation I will start out my last contention with a quote by Christ Hedges who is a former "New York Times" correspondent and author of the article "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction". In it he writes: "All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared. " [1] Now, I am sure that not to many people are actually aware of the population crises in America or the world for that matter, but in spite of the small amounts of media and news coverage the threat is very real. At our current birth rate by the year 2050 the Earth's population will be between 8 million people to 10 million people[1]. The U. S. has nearly quadrupled the number of people within its boundaries in the past century; if our population multiplies by that same amount within the coming century we will hold over one billion people. There are two factors that play a part in this and I will get to my point with this soon after. 1. The first being fertility rates, the U. S. has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman. the U. S. 's highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom's fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3. )[2]. 2. And the next is immegration. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U. S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U. S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990 [2]. The following graphs further deminstrates the rapid growth in population in the U. S. U. S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Year Projected population Percent changefrom population in2000 2010 310,233,000 10% 2020 341,387,000 21% 2030 373,504,000 32% 2040 405,655,000 44% 2050 439,010,000 55% Now immagine an overpopulated disaster in the U. S. Imagine lands that once could be enjoyed for their natural beauty are now concrete jungles, our country's children attend schools that are overloaded and lack the teacher to student interaction we once had, social infrastructures and systems are overloaded, natural resources are being depleted, and our environment is being tasked beyond its limits. Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate so we can find a solution to it. That is all for now, I thank the people who read this. I will now await my opponent's argument. Solutions[1]. http://rense.com......[2]http://www.npg.org...... |
14 | 4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00006-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Since Pro has not set the BoP, we can assume that the BoP is placed on Pro. All I need to do is provide a reasonable case homosexuality is something you are not born with.My Case:I would like to assert homosexuality is caused by nurture; not nature. In biology, we learn that we have traits. These can be determined by certain factors. These factors are physical, environment, and spiritual in nature. A physical factor would be a certain level of melanin causing pigmentation. An environmental factor could be growing up in a bad place in town; causing the person to be on constant alert. A spiritual factor could be someone keeping their virginity until marriage for their religion. While some traits are brought on by physical factors, our behavior is mostly shaped by our environmental and spiritual factors. A human's sexuality falls into this category of being shaped by environmental factors. Eight major studies in identical twins show that homosexuality is not genetic. As quoted by the article:"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. "Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women." Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors." The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says." (1)"Humans display a wide range of sexual feelings and behavior. Nowhere is this more prominent than in American culture which is saturated with images and references to sex and romantic love from television advertisements to billboard displays. Often, our identities as individuals are wrapped up with our romantic tendencies and how these play out in our relationships. Sometimes an individual's sexual behavior is used as a barometer for his or her moral or religious beliefs. Our collective sense of how human sexuality should be expressed is revealed through the rights and liberties that structure our lives as citizens. We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are. Each of the above areas of research displays findings that hinge on the assumption that a given individual's sexual expression neatly fits into the categories "straight" and "gay." By not considering evidence of human sexual fluidity, debates regarding origins and biology are not substantial or complete. Current efforts fail to tell the whole story. And even if we were to accept that the assigned sexual orientation of the individuals participating in these studies accurately reflected their lifelong expression, conclusive proof of a link between this and their genes has yet to be found."(2)It is clear that I have made the point that homosexuality depends on factors that are determined outside the womb. Thus, I have fulfilled my BoP. However, if my opponent still wants evidence, I'll be happy to provide Pro which such material. How can you change a person's sexuality? You can change it under the right environmental conditions. Rebuttals:Addressing opponent's 1st and 2nd argument:"But all of this evidence rests on the notion that sexual orientation is fixed and that individuals are either "straight" or "gay." Researchers in these studies did not indicate whether individuals in their sample provided an extensive account of their sexual histories and tastes. Rather, individuals in the samples were simply asked to define their sexual orientation. In doing this, researchers set up a false dichotomy whereby the individuals studied are forced into one of two categories neither of which may accurately account for the full range of their sexual expression. Additionally, it is difficult to conclude with certainty that because a trait shows up more often among biologically-related siblings, it is inherited. In fact, many such traits appear to be linked to distinctly non-biological factors. Diet, drug addiction, religious and political orientation, and career paths are just a few of the behaviors that cluster in families due to shared social influences. Indeed, a shared environment can often produce a clustering of all types of behavior patterns. It is doubtful that any study could be designed with sufficient sensitivity to exclude this possibility. The methods used in family linkage studies, which depend upon recruitment from gay and lesbian magazines, websites, and organizations, carry a clear risk of ascertainment bias. Gay brother pairs may be more interested in responding than gay men with straight brothers, given the potential for homophobia among siblings and the substantial number of homosexuals who are "in the closet" toward their families. Twins or siblings who are both gay might find the subject interesting or already suspect a genetic basis of their shared sexual orientation, thus making them more likely to participate . In order to exclude these potentially confounding factors, more recent studies have drawn participants from random samples. A study in 2000 of 4,500 twins from the Australian Twin Registry by Bailey and colleagues showed only a 30% rate of homosexuality shared between both male and female identical twins." (2)Also, sources. Provide them. However, this proves such sources to be unfit to use.Response to argument 3:I have addressed this in my earlier argument.Response to argument 4, 5, 6, and 7:Thus, you admit some do change. This contradicts your stance that homosexuality is set from inside the womb. Also, source. Provide them.There are stories of people changing their sexuality in time; whether it be to heterosexuality of homosexuality. (3) (4) Again, this contradicts your claim. To sum them up, these are stories where the therapy actually worked and when people decided to be gay. In fact, a woman in source number four is a homosexual; yet acknowledges said therapies work in some occasions. Response to argument 8 and 9:Refer to my earlier argument.As for the "God" argument, I used to be Catholic. They taught in the Church that humans were given the right to autonomy; which is the ability to make an unbiased decision. With certain decisions, environmental factors could arise causing homosexuality; fulfilling God's right for our autonomy.I'm out of characters. I appreciate your time. Anime OP:1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... |
6 | e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Thanks for accepting. I'd like to start off by outlining a framework for this debate. There are a few key factors that need to be looked at: 1) The cost to the individual 2) The benefit to the individual 3) The cost to the majority 4) The benefit to the majority In any effective cost/benefit analysis, the cost or benefit to the majority is always carries more impact than the cost for benefit to the individual. Thus, for framework of this debate, the Pro must prove that the costs outweigh the benefits for the majority of the U.S populace, and the Con must prove that the benefits outweigh the costs for the majority of the U.S populace. With that, here are my contentions: 1. College does not benefit the majority The Bureau of Labor Statistics sheds some light on the amount of students who attend college, and from that, the amount who actually graduate. According to a BLS study in 2010[1], 68% of high school graduates attended college. According to this same study, 45% of those who enrolled in college didn't even graduate. From that, we can conclude that 62.6% of the students that graduate from high school did not receive a college degree, whether they dropped out or didn't even attend in the first place. Right off the bat, that's more than half of the U.S population who do not receive individual benefits from a college education, whether the reason be dropping out of college or not even attending at all. Although that doesn't seem like a lot, it's enough to prove a point. The Labor Department's American Community Survey[2] tells us of another 22% of college graduates that are currently employed at a job that doesn't even require a degree. All of this points to the idea that all of the individual benefits that the Con is sure to point out aren't actually obtained by the majority of the U.S populace. 2. College contributes towards the growing income gap in the U.S Bryan Caplan, a professor of economics at the George Mason University, says that "From a moral point of view, far too many students are going to college – just as far too many people stand up at concerts"[3]. This analogy compares going to college with standing up at a concert: Sure, doing so will benefit you individually, there's no denying that, but by doing so you are effectively hindering the people around you. The more people that stand up at concerts, the more it hinders everyone there, just as the more people who attend college, the more it hinders the U.S populace, which includes both people who chose to attend college, and those who did not. According to the Center for the Study of Democracy in 2007[4], from 1973 to 2005, wages of those in the 90th percentile – where most people have college or advanced degrees – rose by 30 percent or more, and among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated in the top 1%, which includes venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below, where many people have at most a high school diploma, real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent. Although there isn't a causal relationship between the growing income gap and college education, these statistics still show an increasing gap between the payment of a blue collar worker and a white collar worker. This means that people who can't afford college, people who drop out or fail college, or even people who don't want to go to college are punished, and in most cases, the act that they're being punished for is completely out of their control. 3. College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care system The U.S is infamous for its astronomical health care prices, and semi-infamous for the high cost of a decent college education. Is it a coincidence that a medical school education is one of the most expensive educations that one can receive, but the potential profit from that career path is exponentially higher? I think not. The Association of American Medical Colleges reports that tuition rates alone for first year students averaged at $50,000 a year[5]. This doesn't include room and board, textbooks, and other expenses, and it also doesn't include graduate school. A study done by the American Medical Association reported that the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2010 was $157,944[6]. From the same study, they found that 78 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000, 42 percent of graduates have a debt of at least $150,000, and 85 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans. In fact, the average amount of time that it takes for a graduated medical student to pay off his or her debts acquired from med school is 11 years. It's no wonder why health care costs are so high, how else would these students pay off their loans? The AMA states that tuition fee is the largest contributor towards the astronomically high price of health care by saying "Medical education debt is driven by rising tuition. AAMC data show that median private medical school tuition and fees increased by 50 percent (in real dollars) in the 20 years between 1984 and 2004. Median public medical school tuition and fees increased by 133 percent over the same time period. Other recent 20-year periods show similar trends." What problems does this cause for our health care system? Reuters ranks the United States as the most expensive health care in the world[7], which is largely due to the debt accumulated by medical students and their need to pay it off. The cost of U.S health care has led to 16.7% of the U.S population who are completely uninsured because they can't afford health care, according to the U.S Census Bureau in 2009[8]. This lack of insurance leads to the unnecessary deaths of 18 thousand people per year according to the U.S Institute of Medicine. Those who are insured still have trouble paying the costs of the health care they receive. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Having the most expensive health care in the world wouldn't be so bad if it was also the best, but that's not the case either. The World Health Organization ranks the United States as having the 37th most effective health care out of the 191 countries that were analyzed. So if you're somehow able to afford health care, it's still not even the best you can get, despite its outrageously high cost. To summarize, college education in the United States does not benefit the majority, it contributes towards an increasing income gap between blue and white collar workers, and it leads to the increasing of price in the already ridiculously overpriced private health care in the U.S. Given these contentions, I affirm. 1. http://www.bls.gov... 2. http://www.census.gov... 3. http://chronicle.com... 4. http://www.frbsf.org... 5. http://services.aamc.org... 6. http://www.ama-assn.org...? 7. http://www.reuters.com... 8. Unfortunately, this isn't available online anymore, so here's the most recent version, it gives the same information: http://www.census.gov... |
22 | 22ff0f07-2019-04-18T19:00:56Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israel is on the short end of the stick This conflict is enormously broad and impossible to cover adequately in 24000 characters, but we have both done the best we can. I thank my opponent for his summary of his arguments and view of the debate. However, I strongly disagree with his conclusion. THEMES Context: The crucial takeaway here should be to view the conflict in context. I have argued this the entire time. Deaths happened in this conflict, but I have worked to explain why they happened. For Cast Lead, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if Hamas did not shoot rockets at Israel. For the flotilla, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if the activists did not violently take up arms against the IDF. I stated that this whole conflict could have been prevented if the Arabs had not taken up arms against Jews in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so on. So, the conflict must be viewed in the full context. Those against Israel selectively pick through history to provide only what supports them and will not accept any other explanation but Israeli brutality. My opponent is no exception. To continue the importance of context, the organizations my opponent has cited have reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. This is not an ad hominem, this is a look at the root cause. My opponent wants you to simply accept whatever he provides, without looking at how it got from its origin to here. The vote on this debate can be decided very simply: If you think two wolves and a sheep can fairly decide upon dinner, vote pro. If not, vote con. The votes of the UN are decided on a broader version of that, which explains why the votes appear to oppose Israel. Utilitarianism: I have demonstrated that Israel provides a net benefit to the region and that without it, things would be worse off. If not for this conflict, there could be more benefit. Israels hands are tied by its need to protect itself and Arab intransigence. Why are pregnant women supposedly forced to give birth at checkpoints? The question really should be WHY are women trying to enter Israel to give birth? What is in Israel that they want? Justification: As I have explained, the past 90 years have been an endless cycle of the same two events. Arabs provoke; Jews/Israel react. Thus, Israel is continuously justified in its actions. Think about how you would feel if rockets bombarded your houses regularly. Think about how you would feel if you were driving down the road and were pelted with rocks. Then, think about how you would feel if third parties tried to give material support to those committing such attacks on you. How would you react and ask your government to react? Truth: This conflict has taught me about the concept of truth. There can be two opposite things that are true. Of course, this is not quite true itself. Only one thing can happen, but in this conflict, so many people are certain that one side or the other is correct. Which is it? My opponent is correct in asserting that this debate has come to epitomize the conflict. The anti-Israel side frequently obfuscates the truth as I have shown with the flotilla, the Cast Lead death tolls, living conditions in Gaza, and so on. My opponent makes a tactical error that should cost him the battle. He lied. I presented the proof above. I hope it is acceptable to repost it here for easier reference. I presented this source (. http://is.gd...), which can be translated with Google Translate. Arabic characters can not be displayed here, so I had to create a Google Doc (. http://is.gd...) to do so. You can explore this yourself. I claim the source describes Gaza. My opponent asserts that it is Jerusalem. He knows that few here can read Arabic and is hoping you trust him and do not look yourself. I have made it easy to determine who is speaking the truth. If my opponent can not even tell the truth on a very clear source, how can anything else he presented be certain? His entire argument has lost integrity. Misrepresentation is another aspect of truth epitomized in this debate, again hearkening back to context. My opponent frequently has misrepresented the conflict, the reality, events, and my arguments. He made conclusions of my arguments that you can compare to your own view of what I said and use that to weigh your vote. The pro-Arab side is often misrepresenting facts. I have shown this several times. Take that into consideration. CONCLUSION The problem in this conflict is that the anti-Israel side can easily make accusations and create short sound bytes and video clips that are easy to accept. It is very easy to say FREE PALESTINE! It is much harder to say you support Israel. It takes Zionists pages and pages to show how these claims are false or heavily skewed. My opponent can make plethora of claims that each take several paragraphs to refute. I provided sources that can be used to answer most, if not all, questions about several of my opponents claims (re: Goldstone, flotilla . .. ). Use these to help you understand the conflict. So where are we now? The most cynical response is to shrug in frustration and walk away. Many do so. My opponent asserts that his claims were not refuted. I wonder if anything I could have said would refute him. Space constraints prohibit full refutations, so I have provided sources that work to refute claims about Gaza, Goldstone, the flotillas, etc. I have provided some examples, context, and sources that work to refute his claims. My opponent attacks my sources without any reasoning behind it other than "Jewish" or "Zionist". If Zionists and Jews cannot be trusted, then why did my opponent start a debate with a Jewish Zionist? Some will now mention my atheism, but that does not matter; I identify as a Jew culturally and ethnically. On that note, why does this atheist support Israel? I clearly do not think this land was ordained by God to Jews or have religious reasons to ignore the truth. So what do I see outside religion that causes me to support Israel? Broadly, why is such a seemingly small conflict with only 45,000 deaths over 90 years of sporadic wars gripping the world so fiercely? Why is everyone obsessed with Israel? What does that mean for this debate and your vote? In summation, voters should examine and understand the context within this debate and the conflict itself lives. They should look at the utilitarian benefits of Israel. They should look at why Israel acts the way it does. Finally, they should understand what is truth and how it has been represented here and in the conflict. This is a strongly partisan issue, but I hope the voters can crack away from their strongheld beliefs and look from a neutral perspective. Many people have switched sides in both directions on flimsy and strong evidence. Let us all hope for no vote-bombing and no sniping that prevents a fair andjust appraisal of this debate. |
Subsets and Splits