query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
23 | 7301aafd-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00005-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Libertarian Framework Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. Death is one of the few serious situations in which it is okay to view things subjectively. The family and friends will be mourning and if they believe that their loved one is in extreme pain and is suffering then the person clearly has the right to an assisted suicide, the state cannot and should not intervene on such personal matters. If they have successfully completed all the required mental health checks and they are clearly sane then they have the right to choose. People that choose to kill themselves because they are in pain and will die very soon can arguably be considered insane however this debate is about whether or not they are mentally capable of making a decision. If this person has decided to allow themselves to die, due to immense suffering and terminal illness then what is the argument to stop them? These are unique circumstances. The person will die and this is inevitable, they are in extreme pain.If you believe that suicide is the alternative then you are mistaken. Assisted suicide is painless, you have a higher chance of success and that it is a decision that your family must agree upon. Suicide is not always painless, it can be a slow death and sometimes you fail to commit suicide and end up increasing your current pain. The issue with preventing them from having an assisted suicide is that you are sentencing them to a life of torture and agony which nobody should deserve to live with.We have the option to put down pets both in the UK and US. Why should pets have greater privileges than humans? Pets get to die painless and peaceful death, on the other hand, we must die painful deaths when we know that death is inevitable. Both of these options are by far better choices than for a person to have to die slowly and painfully due to terminal illness. Essentially, you are the person indirectly sentencing an innocent person (in most cases) to a life of torture and misery. You may claim that the disease is the cause of their torture, which is true. However, you are an indirect cause and therefore you are the murderer. The torturer. Contention 1 - The Right To Die In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. The Independent, March 2002 We clearly have the right to die (as stated clearly above). We are individuals that should have control over our own lives rather than letting the government to govern them. Rights works should work both ways. If we have the right to live then surely we should have the right to die. Do you wish to prevent an individual from possessing their basic human rights? "The human right to die with dignity. The human right to spare yourself – and those you love – months and years of nothing but misery and pain. We watch our parents get old, and then we see them become ill, and then we watch them die. This is the everyday tragedy that touches all of our lives. But it is grotesque, inhuman and unnecessary that the dying should have to be humiliated and tortured by whatever is killing them.200 courageous Brits have ended their lives in Dignitas over the last ten years. They have been both young and old.There was Daniel James, 23, who was paralysed playing rugby.There was Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his 74-year-old wife Joan, who died within months of each other at Dignitas. Sir Edward was nearly blind and increasingly deaf. Lady Downes had terminal cancer. By ending their lives at Dignitas, they spared themselves needless misery – and they also spared their families needless misery, too."Many people (including me) think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so they should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. People should care that this human right is restricted. By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government's hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death. The freedom to assisted suicide is special and should not be ignored, we have control over our lives and logic tells us that if we have control over our lives then surely we should have control over our deaths. And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. This is the principle that Assisted Suicide is based upon. Contention 2 - Hippocratic Oath Over time the Hippocratic Oath has been modified on a number of occasions as some of its tenets became less and less acceptable. References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been deleted. The quoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die. Killing the patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing--sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good medical end-of-life care: yes. "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses" This is the opening statement of the original Hippocratic Oath. This is already unconvincing since sticking to this would require all doctors to follow the same religion and believe in the same Gods. However this is a minor issue compared to the absurdity of some of the promises that must be made. The Hippocratic Oath is sexist and here is an example of sexism within the original Oath: - "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men..." The absurdity of the original Hippocratic Oath is evident and that is why modifications were essential in order for us to expand and progress in society. The modern Hippocratic Oath implies that we have the right to assisted suicide and euthanasia because, as I have said previously, prolonging inevitable death is causing pain. This is a clear violation of the rules within this modified document. The oath is extremely important and cannot be disregarded. The oath binds many doctors to use their ethical conscience and do what is morally right. This moral conscience is the essence of the original oath. Contention 3 - Religious Concerns "Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability…" Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths. Be it further resolved: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. Contention 4 - Living wills Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. The right to refuse care is insufficient not only because it puts the patients under even more pain but because there is clearly a much stronger, safer and painless option that could easily be used - assisted suicide. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'... A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care. Contention 5 - Social Groups at risk of abuse One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents who died between January 1998 and December 2002, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, non African American patients have chosen assisted suicide. Conclusion I have clearly demonstrated that Assisted Suicide should be legalized and it should not remain illegal. I have done this using facts and reliable university studies and sources. I wish my opponent good luck for the following round and am looking forward to an interesting debate.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...; |
43 | 5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled Water is better than Tap Water I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is "federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. "fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet."[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... |
50 | 2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments. |
3 | 9079b088-2019-04-18T18:14:43Z-00006-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job Okay I accept,I will be arguing "9/11 was an inside job",under these definitions:9/11:September 11, 2001. On this date, two hijacked commercial airliners were flown into the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. A third hijacked airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth went down in a field in Pennsylvania.Inside Job:A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.Truther:Person believing that the U.S. government perpetrated or allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.First argeement:U.S. government allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen! It is their job to stop this from occuring, yet they don't even know? Please sugar baby, stop with the excuses.It probably wouldn't of happened if the government was more responsible and stuff.Kinda suspicious...It's the government man!First it was aliens, now it's buildings.Shame on you.Second Arguement:My opponent is obviously involved with the government and is trying to brainwash the public!Just Kidding lol |
6 | 32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The costs of college outweigh the benefits As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, "The greatest investment is yourself." Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated "Information is the currency of democracy." If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates. |
5 | 41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Let us get back to the debate. Contention 1: Harming Retirees My opponent argues that Privitazation would harm the retirees, but this is fallacous. I have shown last round they will be given an oppertunity to do with it as they please as they will have full ownership of the money in their private accounts. [1] With the ending of the government monopoly on the issue they can chose to do a multitude of things from investing in the stock market to banking or from investing in things like existing Roth IRAs and 401K plans. We would have to realize that opening the market will allow a multitude of new businesses to rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens and look out for their best interstests. Not to mention that you would be able to own your own accounts. Just as a Legal immirgrant was denied any sort of Social Security even though he was a registered US citizen and he paid taxes, but was dennied his SS benefits, but under privitization these options are open to anyone. [2] My opponent fears a stock market SS option, but that is a rediculious fear. We have seen that upon an investment you can see an anuall growth of 11% of your account showing a great deal of economic growth. That's just without a large investment if this plan is ennacted. [3] Let's do some generic math here to see the net benefit or loss from this. -The average stock grows 10% each year. [4] -Average dividend is 3%[5] -Inflation is about 3.2% [6] So mathematically we can expect to see an average of 9.8% growth in earnings each year while the individual under Social Security would be at 2.7-3.2%. Which after 42 years (from age 18-60) under this plan you'll get $711,000 vs. if you just stuck with the status quo Social Security you can get the maximum of $118,500. [7] Even if this cap is eliminated under this estimate under my opponent's system it will only rise to a whopping $126,000. Not to mention that this is just simply the average stock vs. SS max. Can you image if you get better than normal? You'd be a millionare. We can see that on the Solvency here and the balance of the impacts my plan outweighs my opponents. We can see that this would be a gradual thing that will be phased out of in 10 years. Last year Social Security ate up 26% of the US budget with $906 billion and this number is growing. Funding will simply come from the existing SS budget as the number will sink as the accounts are being privitized. [8] Contention 2: Privatization I know that my system hasn't been tried anywhere, but that doesn't mean that it would outright fail. How do you think we've gotten to the moon. With that I will move on to some of the examples that my opponent has brought up to show why he is incorrect and ommitting a great deal of the truth from you. The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control. You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Contention 3: Counter Plan I agree with my opponent that something here needs to be done, but his purposal is purposterous and will wreck the economy. We currently see that the tax rate is currently 6.20% for Social Security and Medicare is approximately 1.45%. We can see that the tax rate wouldn't go up by 0.7%, but we would see a jump to at least 9% in order to cover the Social Security Costs over the next 75 years. Economicst Emmanuel Saez and Jefferey Libberman have found that even if we eliminate the Tax Cap we can still see a 40% short fall of SSA statistics. [11] So even if Con's plan is enacted it wouldn't improve the situation, but actually make it worse. He also found that if any raise did occur then they actually found that poor women would actually have a negative earnings and their money that they would be pooring into the system would be worth a whole lot less then if it was implamented. Not only was it found that the nation would get less income from the taxation, but people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan than the SSA's by $1,000s at many times and begins to stagnate around those who make $60,000 and up. [12] We can actually see that one of the key things we have here is that those above the Tax Max make well less than those who pay into the system. It turns out that those over tend to make a whoping 5% over the tax limit while the rest make out richer in the end. We can also see that with the current federal tax bracket there is 45% tax rate for the top bracket. [13] After the increase at federal and state level which includes raising the tax rates to accomidate this we can see they will wind up with an overal 12% tax increase to the point to where they are tax higher than those in Scandinavia and we still wouldn't see Substantial solvency in the long run still leading to this counter-plan to be a failure. [14] Not to mention that this plan still doesn't solve for much of the issues with current Social Security Standings as not only is it worse, but we can see that there's still holes in it. We can still see that in the long run we will still see a Bridge Payer system here and with the US population growing older we can see that this issue will only continue to grow worse and the problem needs to be fixed now. Just as under Con's plan and the Status Quo, the US Federal Government can still use the SS funds to do whatever they want with it as they please and for many Americans it will just seem like another way more money is being squeezed out of Americans and our Senior Citizens still won't see a dime. [15] Not to mention if they die before they reach the age that they would be able to receive it, under Con's Plan just as the Status Quo, the funds would dissolve, but under my plan, as I have shown last round, will move to the clostest living relitive. Sources 1. (Michael D. Tanner, "Is There a Right to Social Security? ," cato. org, Nov. 25, 1998) 2. (Social Security Administration, "Social Security History: Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor," ssa. gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015) 3. Aswath Damodaran, "Annual Returns on Stock, Bonds and T-bill's: 1928 - Current," New York University Stern School of Business website, Jan. 5, 2015 4. (. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) 5. (. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...) 6. (. http://inflationdata.com...) 7. (. http://www.kiplinger.com...) 8. (Courtney Baird, "Diving into the Deficit," Committee for Economic Development website, Nov. 6, 2014) 9. (. http://www.cato.org...) 10. (. http://www.texaspolicy.com...) 11. ( . http://eml.berkeley.edu...) 12. ( 1 Saez (2001) shows, when deriving the optimal non-linear marginal tax rate formula, that the same Laffer rate formula applies when considering a local marginal tax rate increase exactly as in our 90% of earnings)13. (. http://fee.org...) 14. ( Andrew G. Biggs, "Entitlements: Not Just a Health Care Problem," AEI Retirement Policy Outlook (August 2008), www. aei. org/outlook/28443. See also Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (Washington, DC, June 2010), www. cbo. gov /doc. cfm? index=11579 (accessed March 8, 2011). 15. ( Michael Tanner, "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor," cato. org, July 26, 1996)26, 1996) |
23 | 9386ee6d-2019-04-18T15:04:34Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia." However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] .) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South [7] and [8] Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " "it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong." [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presentedi n the comments section. |
15 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
43 | 12d85dfd-2019-04-18T18:36:44Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | should water boarding be considered torture im sorry but i have to forfeit this debate i hope for a rematch down the road |
21 | a943ab62-2019-04-18T17:31:22Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | interveening in human rights abuses I affirm resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Justified means permissible. For example, I am justified in drinking a bottle of water after I run because I am thirsty, but it doesn"t mean I have an obligation to do so. Also, justified concerns the specifics of situations because different things are justified in different circumstances. For instance it"s justified for my dad to have a hammer in his toolbox even though hammers aren"t useful in all situations. The resolution isn"t a categorical statement that all political interference to stop human rights violations are good, but rather that it is permissible in certain circumstances like a tool in the toolbox. For the neg to win, my opponent must prove that the action of the resolution is not permissible at all. For the sake of clarification in this debate, I would like to define the following terms from An online Dictionary: Human Rights meaning inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. And intervening meaning to Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events. I value equality My value criterion is normative standard because it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate. Normative Standard is the idea that the ultimate goal of a value or action can be shown to be moral if it universally applies to all people in all situations. CONTENTION One Moral Responsibility to Protect Human Rights Luke Glanville says The "responsibility to protect" encompasses two broad propositions. The first proposition is that states have a responsibility to protect their own populations from mass atrocities The second proposition of the "responsibility to protect" concept is that bystander states or the "international community" have not simply a right but a collective responsibility to assist host states in protecting their populations and to act to protect these populations in situations where the host state is manifestly failing to do so. What is important here is the process by which Shue arrives at what is to be considered a basic right, which in itself suggests a prioritization of basics rights. The most basic, of course, is the right to life, which is embodied by both security and subsistence rights, violations of which often result in death. Any international treatment of an individual that permanently places him or her in a condition whereby he or she cannot in the future hope to enjoy any other right is therefore a violation of a basic right. Death is such a condition. Other "less permanent" but conceivably perpetual conditions include enslavement, impairment from physical abuse, and forcible Expulsion, the aim of which is to destroy the victim by treating him or her as entirely disposable. Violations of basic rights, then, are the most serious violations of human rights. AND The responsibility to protect human rights does not change because people live in a different country This more specific moral thesis: that our global institutional order is to be assessed and reformed principally by reference to its relative impact on human rights fulfillment. This is one way of saying that human rights in our time have global normative reach: A person's human rights entail not merely moral claims on the institutional order of her own society, which are claims against her fellow citizens, but also analogous moral claims on the global institutional order, which are claims against her fellow human beings. Our responsibilities entailed by human rights are engaged by our participation in any coercively imposed institutional order in which some persons avoidably lack secure access to the objects of their human rights, and these (negative) responsibilities are extended, then, through the emergence of a global institutional order in whose coercive imposition we collaborate. CONTENTION TWO Allowing intervention urges an ethic of international cooperation If we appreciated the full force of the principle of common humanity underlying humanitarian intervention and integrated it into the normal pattern of interstatal relations, we would see states as both autonomous and part of a wider community, bounded yet open, both self-determining and accountable to mankind, and having obligations both to their own citizens and to their moral kith and kin outside. We would then appreciate the moral need to share our material, political, ethical and cultural resources with the rest of mankind, and to cooperate in creating a just, peaceful and relaxed world in which many of the causes that generate the need for humanitarian intervention would disappear. Injustices, inequalities and mutual suspicions and fears, however, are not the only causes of grave civil disorder, and the human capacity for brutality does not always follow the laws of political rationality. States may become a living hell, and the outside world may then need to intervene. We therefore need what J.S. Mill called "some rule or criterion" to decide when humanitarian intervention is justified and in what form. In conclusion, having supported my value of equality, I urge a affirmation of the resolution that The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. |
36 | df72c7ac-2019-04-18T18:56:15Z-00004-000 | Is golf a sport? | Women and Contact Sports The Resolution I accept Pro's rules. Pro neglected to define "contact sport," but his examples of football and wrestling should suffice for this debate. Wikipedia gives the definitions http://en.wikipedia.org... The resolution is that "High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote women's teams in contact sports, including football and wrestling." So at minimum high schools an colleges are compelled by the resolution to establish women's football teams and women's wrestling teams. This departs from present policy in which each high school and college makes an independent decision as to what women's sports they establish and promote. Whether the school is in Alaska, where winter sports prevail, or Hawaii, where ocean sports are popular, the women should have a football team -- or so Pro contends. Pro's Contentions Rebutted Pro gives no reason why tradition, local preferences, and the wishes of the women athletes should be overridden in favor of devoting scarce resources to a women's football team. Pro offers four contentions, but none support the resolution. Pro begins by reciting past history in which women were prohibited from participation in contact sports. There are currently no such prohibitions, and Pro cited none. If the resolution were that women's contact sports would be permitted, I would support the resolution. That's not the resolution. In fact Pro cites both the existence of women's wrestling and it's increasing popularity. That contradicts his notion that it is prohibited, and it undermines the notion that it cannot prosper without the resolution. P1. Benefits to women. Pro contends that sports benefits women. Sure. I agree. So why does that imply that a women's football team should be required. Men's football teams are not required, and Pro is not contending that those men are not benefiting from sports. So why should women's football teams be required? P2. Sexism. Pro argues that football is perceived as a macho sport. Pro doe not say why having a sport perceived as macho is harmful or how the establishment of a women's football team would cure any such problem. Some sports are considered feminine: synchronized swimming, gymnastic floor exercises performed to music, and gymnastics with apparatus. So, must we compel men's synchronized swimming, and so forth? Other sports like figure skating are perceived as feminine. The women's competitions draw considerably more interest than the men's, despite there being both men's and women's teams. Insofar as such perceptions exist, they do no harm, and having tams for both sexes does not necessarily remedy the perception. Cheerleading is not currently a sport, but Pro perceives it as a girls' activity. Male cheerleaders have been around for some time, but it hasn't changed Pro's perception. Sports need not be contact sports to be perceived s macho. Weightlifting is not a contact sport, nor the gymnastics rings competition. If Pro can find something wrong with a mach perception, then his resolution should be directed at macho sports, not contact sports. I am not arguing that sports perceived masculine or feminine ought to be preserved. My argument is that the decisions ought to be left to the individual schools and the participants. P3. Participation. Pro contends that women's participation in traditionally male sports is increasing. So how does that imply that every school should have a women's football team? Schools should respond to the choices of students, not attempt to indoctrinate them to Pro's way of thinking. If participation is increasing then some traditional sports will eventually be dropped and replaced with new sports. Football is not particularly dangerous, so that is not a relevant concern. "More than half a million people suffered basketball-related injuries last year, compared to 485,000 hurt on bikes and 418,000 injured playing football." http://www.livescience.com... Negative Contentions Here are my negative arguments: N1. There's no reason to prefer contact sports Contact sports have no advantage over other sports, so there is no reason to promote them. The two most popular school sports in Europe are soccer and gymnastics, and they are so popular that everything else is pretty much an also-ran. http://www.youth-sport.net... The popularity is shared by boys and girls. So is there some compelling reason why rugby ought to be promoted in Europe above their current favorites? Pro has the burden to prove there is something better, or there is no reason to force their establishment and promotion. I see no reason. the Europeans are doing fine without a very popular contact sport. In the U.S. the most popular boys sports are basketball, football, baseball, track and field, and soccer. For girls it is basketball, soft ball, track and field, volleyball, and soccer. http://www.livestrong.com... Football, the only contact sport, is clearly an oddity in that regard. Four of the five most popular sports are already available and popular with both sexes. N2. Existing women's sports will have to be dropped to add football and wrestling. Title IX, enacted in 1972, mandates that equal funds be spent on men's and women's sports. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance... —United States Code Section 20,http://en.wikipedia.org... Funds for athletics are tight, but whatever is available is split equally. About 670 colleges have dropped men's wrestling as a varsity sport. http://www.usawrestlingnation.com... Even though wrestling is a cheap sport, especially compared to football, there are not enough participating men to justify the programs. http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com... Football remains popular, especially with high school boys. However, football is also suffering from lack of resources, with programs being cut. http://badgerherald.com... More than thirty major schools have downgraded their football programs or dropped it altogether. http://collegefootball.about.com... If men's wrestling and football are having great difficulties, there is no reasonable chance of them succeeding as women's sports. If the resolution were put into effect, money would be spent in futile efforts to establish and promote women's teams. The only place the money can come from is by discontinuing established popular women's sports. The inevitable result is decreased participation by women in sports. The resolution replaces popular sports with unpopular ones. N3. Life sports are better. If the resolution is implemented, it would attempt to entrench sports that cannot be played in later life. Sports like golf, tennis, biking, swimming, and softball can be played after leaving school. That provides for long term heath and exercise benefits. If any attempt is to be made to displace established sports, it ought to be done with the long term benefits to the participants in mind. I don't think there should be any general mandate, but there is it ought to be towards life sports. The resolution goes in the wrong direction. ------------ The resolution fails because because schools and athletes should determine what sports should be established and promoted, not external mandate. Resources for athletics are limited, so the resolution would displace popular sports with unpopular. Pro has given us no pertinent benefits to the resolution health or participation. The resolution is negated. |
48 | 2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29. |
26 | dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00004-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Why we don"t need standardized testing Resolved: On Balance standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the Unites States. Standardized tests don"t provide any further information we don"t already know - Greg Jouriles 14 http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second"less radical and more familiar"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: "That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. "To sum up, we don"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence." But it has also been an opportunity. Recognizing our grading differences, we opted to create a common conception of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now align closely with the Common Core State Standards. Second, we created common performance tasks that measure these standards and formative assessments that scaffold to them. Third, we look together at student work. Fourth, we have begun to grade each other's students on these common tasks. We could publish the results of these performance tasks, and the public would have a good idea of what we're good at and what we're not. For example, our students effectively employ reading strategies to comprehend a text, but are often stymied by a lack of vocabulary or complex syntax. We've also learned most of our students can coherently develop a claim, citing the appropriate evidence to support it when choosing from a restricted universe of data. They aren't as good when the universe of data is broadened. They are mediocre at analysis, counter-arguments, rebuttals, and evaluation of sources, though they have recently gotten better at evaluating sources as we have improved our instruction and formative assessments. A small percentage of our students do not show even basic competency in reading and writing. That's better information than we've ever received from standardized testing. What's also started to happen is that teachers who use the same standards and rubrics, assign the same performance tasks, and grade each other's work are finding their letter grades starting to align. And, this approach has led to a lot of frank discussions. For example, why are grades different? Where we have looked, different conceptions of achievement and rigor seem most important. So we have to talk about it. The more we do, the more aligned we will become, and the more honest picture of achievement we can create. It has been fantastic professional development"done without external mandates. We have a long way to go, but we can understand the value of our efforts and see improvement in student work. I would not advocate publishing individual teachers' grades because it would cause the same problems as publishing individual teachers' standardized-test results, but grades by subject, grade level, and demographic categories could be fair game externally. Internally, those breakdowns should stimulate hard conversations and necessary professional development. Of course, this proposal would have to be negotiated and modified locally to avoid the punishment/reward cycle of other accountability measures that force people to conform and tempt them to cheat. The goal is to spur the collaboration and conversation necessary for improvement. Well, that's your district, some might say. It's got a unique collaborative culture and a better sense of achievement than most. You can't do that across the nation. Why not? With the common core, a definition of achievement exists. And teachers are more likely to respond to professional development and accountability more concretely connected to their daily work. They are more likely to improve. That leads to the second argument. Even if standardized testing were not only desirable to give the public a picture of basic competencies, but also an efficient way to do so, the costs have been too great. Many have previously made cogent arguments (unrealistic definitions of achievement, skewed instructional schemes, inequitable curricular offerings, inevitable corruption, perverted charter school missions, alienation, disempowerment, and embarrassment of educators, etc.) in this vein, but let's think about a supposed example of success on this front"a school with the high test scores. In general, such a school has a compliant or affluent population. Test scores are a point of pride. The school has a good reputation. But, when you go in and observe, the teaching and learning do not impress. Never once have I looked at the test scores of this kind of school and thought, "How could I be more like them?" That's because success represented just a score on a narrow test of a limited band of achievement (a test, by the way, with content that I was not even legally allowed to talk about), and I couldn't see how looking at that score could help me in my day-to-day teaching. Even worse, I don't think the teachers at such schools have learned much from their good scores. If anything, the scores have prevented them from becoming better. So, to sum up, we don't learn much from standardized testing, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence. The common core is at risk for failure, not because the standards are bad per se, but because with standardized accountability, as in so many partial reforms, we again won't get a real picture of achievement, people will be disappointed, and the standards and testing will run their course. Instead, why not just trust teachers and schools to report the progress of their students with the measures they have, and use internal and external local pressures to improve the measures and practices? It will avoid a plethora of social, emotional, and political costs. Any bureaucracy created can't be more of a drag on the government or economy than the legion of consultants and think tanks today feeding off the trough of education. This proposal is more in line with what we know about the success of sustainable local organizations and what we know about the inflated rise and inevitable fall of mass reform. |
49 | 5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- "Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that "betting" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- "what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. " With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- "i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. " Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented. |
43 | c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00006-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Which water is the best water You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it's beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. |
42 | 2a79f5c3-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00022-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities' interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created.[1] [1] Europol, 'About Europol', https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/history-149 |
13 | 1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00005-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun. |
19 | 3fdbc7fb-2019-04-18T18:13:43Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US. ClarificationsThe debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marriage should be legal in the US, that means that he's also arguing that places in the US which doesn't make gay-marriage legal, should start making it legal. Basically, this debate is not about if gay-marriage is legal or not, but only about if it should be legal or not.DefinitionsGay-marriage: 'The practice of marriage between two males.' [1]Legal: 'Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.' [Ibid]The US: 'United States or United States of America Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA. A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.' [2]RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments shall be given in the last round. No semantics.By accepting this debate, you also accept all the rules and definitions of this debate. Violating one of them will lose you all 7 points.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... |
43 | aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00005-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water is harmful Many bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. "Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive "Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water." (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment "Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose." (2) "Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat)." (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer "Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants." (2) "The fact of the matter is" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests." (3) "Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element." (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? "There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost." (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com... |
49 | dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of "a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots. |
37 | b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. |
4 | 4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00007-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment School and home corporal punishment(example spanking) on children should be banned. I will let my opponent present his/her arguments first or to simply accept and then me present my arguments. |
14 | 7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00001-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual Orientation is a choice. sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance. |
34 | 4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00000-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking Pro has not provided any solid arguments and couldn't refute to anything I said. This debate would've been fun if Pro provided maybe 48-72 hours of length for this debate. Thanks for the debate, Pastafarian :) |
16 | dab1f67b-2019-04-18T18:43:23Z-00001-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Alcohol advertisement should be banned due to insufficient information THank you for posting your case. My opponent states tries to counter my case by stating "I'd question strongly whether there is anyone of reasonable intelligence and age who lacks awareness of the substance"; however, at no point in my case did i state that people where unaware of this substance, i simply stated that alcohol entices the viewers. My opponent went further in stating that "it has no effect on the their awareness that alcohol exists." This statement is absolutely false. When looking at the world today, we find that technology such as television has completely taken over our children and adolescent life, now these children might have known about alcohol to some extent, but when presented with alcohol advertisement, we find that these same kids now know the names of ten different brands of alcohol and why each brand differ from one another. "Research suggests that children and adolescents tend to learn more about alcohol from television and beer advertising than from more balanced sources such as parents, leaving them more knowledgeable about brands of beer than about potential health risks associated with drinking. The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol, 2000." (http://www.media-awareness.ca...) In his first point, my opponent list several social events in which alcohol is present as well as giving us a formula in which ethanol is created, however interesting this may seem, it has noting to do with advertising alcohol and why we "should not" ban alcohol. "The pro case was never specific as to what these risks and what level of ignorance exists. " My opponent makes this statement in his second point. When alcohol advertisement does not present us the viewers with any facts as to what the risk of alcohol poses to yourself and the society. It fails to mention the chain of problems associated with drinking such as accidents, loss of judgement and unsafe sex. Above we find a fine example of an advertisement that rather than informing people, it encourages people to go out and drink. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Finally My opponent tackle in which he deems a "Fascinating theory with 0 evidence presented to support it." My opponent goes on in giving several evidence of his own in an effort to prove me wrong; however, as you probably noted, all his evidence are outdated. This is a new generation and with every new generation, comes a new habit/behavior. Evidence: "Researchers are examining other environmental influences as well, such as the impact of the media. Today alcohol is widely available and aggressively promoted through television, radio, billboards, and the Internet. Researchers are studying how young people react to these advertisements. In a study of 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders, those who found alcohol ads desirable were more likely to view drinking positively and to want to purchase products with alcohol logo" (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... ( January 2006) Here in the UK, psychologists at the University of Hertford have been investigating children's responses to TV alcohol advertising (Nash et al, 2009). They showed that children as young as 7 years old like alcohol advertisements on TV – especially ones with humour, cartoon format, animals and special characters. Secondly, recent study in Australia (Winter et al, 2008) found that children and under-age teenagers are currently exposed to "unacceptably high levels of alcohol advertising on television" (presumably because they are watching TV after the 9pm watershed). However, it should be emphasised, as noted in the introduction, that cartoon format, animals and special characters that could be appealing to those under the legal drinking age, are not permitted by EU, US or Australasian regulatory bodies for example. As Smith and Foxcroft conclude, "we now have stronger empirical evidence to inform the policy debate on the impact of alcohol advertising on young people." This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.... com/1471-2458/9/51 Youth who saw more alcohol advertisements on average drank more (each additional advertisement seen increased the number of drinks consumed by 1% [event rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.02]). Youth in markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures drank more (each additional dollar spent per capita raised the number of drinks consumed by 3% [event rate ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.05]). Examining only youth younger than the legal drinking age of 21 years, alcohol advertisement exposure and expenditures still related to drinking. Youth in markets with more alcohol advertisements showed increases in drinking levels into their late 20s, but drinking plateaued in the early 20s for youth in markets with fewer advertisements. Conclusion: Alcohol advertising contributes to increased drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:18-24 I belief this is enough evidence to prove my case to be a true one. CX: 1) i bvelieve i have provided enough evidence to prove this theory. 2)Drunk driving, loss of judgement e.t.c. The Youtube videos. 3) Evidence above. CX2: What are the benefits of alcohol advertisement. Do these advertisement affect kids view on alcohol (include evidence) Can you provide at least one alcohol commercial in which the risk associated with alcohol are presented. (by the alcohol producers not anti-alcoholic movements.) In conclusion, my opponent tries to counter all my arguments as to why alcohol advertisement should be banned; however, he failed to present a single reason as to why alcohol advertisement should not be banned thus failing to meent his burden of proof. |
9 | 99da1031-2019-04-18T11:12:29Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School Uniform Should be Compulsory Thank you Con for understanding. :) Firstly, I would like to clarify the main contention of my argument: while I do believe that schools should have compulsory uniform, I do not necessarily agree with the way every school that has compulsory uniform enforces their policies regarding school uniform. You mentioned that in Asia, You went to a school with a strict system, And that you could be punished for wearing a dirty uniform. This is not something I agree with at all, And I do not believe schools should be this strict with regards to uniform. Schools should have compulsory uniforms (for the reasons I already mentioned), But they should be lenient with regards to dirty or lost uniforms (this is what the schools I attended were like). This issue of dirty clothes is not unique to schools that have compulsory uniforms either. For schools that do not have school uniforms, I believe that students should not be punished if they accidentally dirty the clothes which they wear. You also state that wearing our own clothes eliminates the need for unnecessary fear of the rigid codes of uniforms which school students have; this is an exaggeration. While there are many students who disagree with the concept of uniforms being compulsory, Students tend to accept that uniforms have benefits and they are certainly not "fearful" of it. A survey conducted in Nevada found that 90% of students dislike wearing a uniform to school, But 54% of students think uniforms do not compromise their identity and 41% thought that school uniforms reduce gang violence. School uniforms may not be universally loved, But they are certainly not feared or demonised by students. You linked an article regarding the causes of bullying. The issue with this is that the article does not prove whether economic bullying is common. In nowhere in the article does it say that the list of causes is exhaustive; bullying is an extremely complex issue and there are many possible causes for it. In addition to this, Economic bullying can "fit within" the causes that are listed in the article. For example, Cause #10: Untaught. This can include economic bullying, As many children (especially younger children) may not realise that they should not judge people based on how they look or dress, As they were never properly taught it, And as a result participate in economic bullying. While there is a difference between a rich student wearing a clean uniform and a poor student wearing an untidy one, It is not as large as the difference between a poor student wearing dirty, Cheap clothes and a rich student wearing clean, Expensive clothes. A large proportion of child psychologists in Australia have said that having compulsory uniforms remove distractions for students and removes pressure for them to keep up with the latest fashion trends. Uniforms may not eliminate bullying, But they do reduce it. My school gave students a choice as to which business you can buy your uniform from (all businesses sold the same school uniform for a given school), And also had a second hand uniform store. (I believe this is something all schools should do). Some businesses sold uniforms for a low price (you could sometimes buy a complete uniform for under $30), And it was often cheaper than if you had to buy regular clothes for school. Even if you did not have to wear uniforms to school, It means your parents would have to purchase more normal clothes that you can wear to school/outside school, Compared to if they did have to buy school uniform. As a result, Having school uniform can be more affordable for some parents. Regarding the time factor, Some people (in schools that do not have compulsory uniforms) spend a lot of time picking what to wear for school because they feel pressured into wearing something that will lead them to not be judged by their peers. As I already mentioned, Ironing and washing your clothes needs to be done regardless of whether or not you wear school uniform. Therefore, School uniforms are beneficial in terms of economics and time. Your poem on unity is very well written (good job! ) but it is inaccurate. Yes, It is definitely true that people judge each other based on race/skin colour/sexuality etc. (and this is a huge problem), But people also judge each other based on clothes, And this is not limited to school. Imagine turning up to a formal job interview for a medical clinic wearing a singlet (with no shirt), Shorts and thongs. Obviously, Before the interviewer even starts asking you questions, He/she will probably already be subconsciously negatively judging you, Regardless of what your race/skin colour/sexuality etc. Is (and you will be significantly less likely to get the job). Judging people based on their clothing is (unfortunately) something many people do. While uniforms do not completely create unity, They will bring students closer to unity. A similar argument can be made with regards to safety. Class roles and ID cards won"t always work either - the criminal can prey on students during break time, While the supervising teachers will not know every student and therefore will not know if everybody is a student of the school or not. Also, CCTV cameras are extremely expensive (my school had fake CCTV cameras because it could not afford real ones, And they pretended that they were real to scare off criminals, But someone in my school"s bag was stolen, And when they asked if it was caught on CCTV, It was revealed that the CCTV cameras were not real. So now everybody knew that the cameras were fake and they became effectively useless). Uniforms will not make it impossible for criminals to enter schools, But they make it significantly more difficult. With regards to liberal discipline, I would argue that school children already have enough freedom. For example, During break time they are allowed to do anything they want (as long as it is within the rules), And when they get back home from school they have a lot of freedom in many aspects, As long as it is within their parents rules (including what to wear). It is not worth it to give school aged children too much freedom with regards to what to wear to school, Because you have to sacrifice so many other important aspects of a child"s school life that I have already mentioned (for example, Unity and equality). School students should have freedom, But not too much freedom. While school uniforms do not completely eliminate bullying, Or completely allow for unity, Etc they certainly do provide a step in the right direction with regards to those issues. Therefore, Compulsory school uniforms for students are the best policy. I would like to thank Con, This has been a very interesting and challenging debate. Good luck with Round 4. :) |
18 | c2b2fdca-2019-04-18T16:51:34Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion should remain legal. You typed all that I thought you read where I say idc anymore. I'll -give- you a win because I'm bored and I am bot going to read all of that I just got off Christmas mode im done |
49 | 784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka |
37 | 3c53b33f-2019-04-18T15:23:42Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | "Christians" - The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept! Churches across the world teach that YAHUAH's Ten Commandments were abolished - nailed to the cross with The Messiah, YAHUSHUAH, and that they are no longer required to be kept under the New Covenant. Is this what YAHUSHUAH and His Apostles taught? Did they continue to teach and observe the commandments? What does the Bible say? For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. - 1 John 5:3 In Matthew 5:17, The Messiah says, "Thinke not that I am come to destroy the lawe or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." So why is that people think that the laws are done away with? YAHUSHUAH clearly advised us NOT TO EVEN THINK THIS, yet Bible scholars and ministers GO AGAINST the teaching of The Messiah, and teach that we do not have to keep The Most High's laws. We are clearly warned of these false teachers by Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – "For suh are false Apostles, deceitfull workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. V14 And no marveile, for Sathn himself is transformed into an Angel of light. V15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also bee transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." Satan's ministers pawn themselves off as The Messiah's ministers and Satan makes himself out to be YAHUSHUAH! Apostle John taught throughout his writings that the law is still to be observed by YAHUAH's people. In John 5:14 & 8:11 The Messiah told people to "sin no more". WHAT IS SIN? I Jn 3:4 states, "for sinne is the transgression of the law". SIN IS THE BREAKING OF The Most High's COMMANDMENTS! YAHUSHUAH said not to break them anymore! John clearly states that we don't even know The Messiah IF WE DON'T keep the commandments (I Jn 2:3-6). He continued to show that we are to keep the commandments in the book of Revelation. Rev 12:17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Now read Rev 14:12, " Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 22:14 states: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." What about the apostle Paul? False teachers take Paul's writings out of context to say that the Law is done away with. The apostle Peter gave warning of this in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul himself kept the law and declared, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". He wrote to the Romans saying "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13). Concerning the GRACE of The Most High that we are under, he asked, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" V2-" God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2). And concerning Law and Faith he asks, " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31) These are simply a few of the countless Scriptures, which show the Truth of Law keeping for "Christians." Let's now view the New Covenant and make a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear throughout it. I'll list each of the commandments as they appear in Exodus 20 first, followed by their New Covenant counterparts. 1st Commandment OC: " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.V3 -Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:2-3) 1st Commandment NC: "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10/ Luke 4:8). 2nd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or thatisin the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fouth generation of them that hate Me; And shewing mercy unto thousands who love Me, and keep my commandments." (Ex 20:4-6) 2nd Commandment NC: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols . . . "(Acts15:20) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:9,10) "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph 5:5) 3rd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." (Ex 20:7) 3rd Commandment NC: "I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Mt 12:36) "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."(Mt 15:8,9) "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) " …that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1Tim 6:1) 4th Commandment OC: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh dayisthe Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in themis, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11) 4th Commandment NC: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mt12:8/Lk 6:5) " . . . it is lawful to do well on thesabbathdays." (Mt12:12) "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day."(Mt 24:20) " . . . they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught." (Mk1:21) "And he said unto them, Thesabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27-28) 5th Commandment OC: "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Ex 20:12) 5th Commandment NC: " . . . Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying,Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Mt15:3-4/Mk 7:10) "Honour thy father and thy mother . . . " (Mt 19:19/Mk 10:19/Lk18:20) 6th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13) 6th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Mt 5:21-22 - see 1Jn 2:9) " . . . Do not kill . . ." (Mk 10:19) 7th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14) 7th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mt 5:27-28) "I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Mt 5:32) "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery . . ." (Mt 19:18/Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) 8th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15) 8th Commandment NC: "Thou shalt not steal . . " (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) "Do not steal . . . " (Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) " . . . thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:10) "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Eph 4:28) "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Rev 9:21) 9th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex 20:16) 9th Commandment NC: " . . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt 12:36-37) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man." (Mt 15:19-20) " . . . Thou shalt not bear false witness . . ." (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) " . . .Do not bear false witness . . . " (Mk10:19/Lk 18:20) 10th Commandment OT: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17) 10th Commandment NT: "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Lk 12:15) "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Rom 7:7)" . . . Thou shalt not covet . . . " (Rom 13:9) |
32 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI |
43 | 415637f5-2019-04-18T17:03:41Z-00005-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | should homework be banned I think it should not be banned because it helps you get good grades and helps you learn. |
19 | 4366841b-2019-04-18T15:33:58Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage should be legalized. "My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place."I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already "been approached". I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't.Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not?"Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized. |
40 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
15 | ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00007-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for "humans". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated. |
8 | 6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal. Ok, here's the deal. I was looking over this trying to decide what I want to say for my next argument, and I realized something. I am arguing the right point in the wrong debate. What I am saying is that abortion is wrong. You are saying abortion should be legal. Well, I agree. Abortion should be legal because if it isn't, we end up with really bad scenarios like in Dirty Dancing (Yes, I have seen that movie). When people need abortions, they go to the back allies and get some half wit who just got his medical license revoked to cut them open and take out the baby. Well, that isn't safe. Abortion should be legal, but there should be tons of regulations on getting one. For example, rape. If you get raped, that is one way you should be ALLOWED an abortion. But if you are a 25 year old woman who got knocked up a month before her wedding, to bad. No abortion for you just because you want to look good in your wedding dress. What I am trying to say is we are both right. Abortion is wrong but unfortunately should be legal so that when someone NEEDS it, they have access to it and don't have to go to some shady guy in a back alley. I probably won't make a next round argument as I have nothing to argue for. My point doesn't belong in this debate, and I should have thought about it more before I jumped in. |
8 | c7ab4e76-2019-04-18T19:47:10Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be made legal. I will start off by saying that abortion should be made legal. While I dislike it from a moral standpoint, my morals also convince me that abortion should be made legal. I reserve the right to add further benefits of making abortion legal (if you disagree, don't accept), however, I will deal with what I think is perhaps the single most important argument for now. There may be more after the response. A. Banning abortion in all cases is bad. 1. Banning abortion in all cases is ridiculous, there are several cases in which not allowing an abortion would be unethical and unhealthy. 2. Women whose health is put at risk by child birth should be allowed an abortion. 3. Women who have been raped should be allowed an abortion, it would be immoral to force her to keep a symbol of her rape for her whole life. B. Exceptions should be made at least in the cases above. C. If you are to accept this, pragmatism forces us to make abortion legal. 1. Any women can claim that childbirth will hurt her. This can all be easily forged with some doctor's writing, ultimately, that means that anyone can claim for an abortion. 2. Rape must be proven in court. It takes more than 9 months for someone to be proven guilty without a doubt, and thus, we are forced to grant an abortion before a conviction. Also, a women could claim to have been raped and not have proof, so ultimately, she must also be granted an abortion. Anyone could claim rape, and this means that we would be having people lie for the sake of having an abortion. Ultimately, this is another reason to legalize abortion. D. Abortions will happen anyway 1. Abortions will not be stopped, only driven underground. 2. It's better for the country for abortions to be done legally and safely than in an ally with a cloth-hanger. E. Vote AFF, it would be a wicked thing to deny abortion in all cases, and these exceptions force us to allow abortion in all cases. |
6 | f3328136-2019-04-18T19:46:38Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Free tuition for college students through government taxation should be supported. While my opponent wastes valuable time disputing that the cost of college is one of the most expensive things people will ever "buy," I'd just like to point out that of the people that have a college education, that education cost vastly more money than any other thing they will ever buy. This is to say that the average person will spend more on college than they will on their cars, watches, prostitutes, etc... unless somehow the average person shells out $100,000 for their watch and car. While the restrictions I speak of do not necessarily follow the resolution to the letter, I'd also like to point out that we've been given a terrible resolution for implementation in the United States and to implement it here would mean the introduction of compromises and restrictions, and indeed, many social programs in foreign countries are contingent upon certain conditions - the government in the UK won't pay for a student with a High School GPA of 1.8 to go to college. It's simply a waste of money. In these restrictions, I mentioned the lack of need to give tax money to millionaires. If they're not receiving the benefit of the tax, why should they pay it? Everyone pays social security tax, yet many people don't use it. We all pay taxes used to provide welfare, yet most of us don't use it. Therefore, it would follow that there is no change in the system to tax people for social programs they won't use. Everyone would pay the tax, and the usage of the program would depend on income level. I also mentioned that outrageously priced institutions should not benefit from this resolution. This of course makes perfect sense in the current system. Food stamps do not pay for persons to buy fillet mingion every night. As with that program, this resolution should provide a basis for education. The education from a state school such as Purdue University or Iowa State is perfectly acceptable - in fact, some of these schools are much better than more expensive private institutions (Purdue in engineering, Iowa in political science). >> "If free tuition through taxation were to be a reality, then all college students should be able to benefit equally." Why? Not all college students ARE equal. This is quite clear in the fact that colleges turn down students based on academic performance or provide financial aid to those students who otherwise would not be able to pay for college. Why should the 4.0 student recieve the same benefit as the 0.8 student? That's ludicrous. Why should the millionaire get the same ammount as the student who is also using food stamps. That's ludicrous as well. >>"Unfortunately, per the restrictions assumed by JCMTarzan, the Dept. of Education calls you up and tells you that you cannot attend because it is too expensive. The program didn't really work in your case, did it? A highly specific example, but it makes the point." It makes the point that this program can easily be adapted to suit individual needs, not that the program is fallacious. Obviously, if the student is of a high enough caliber to be accepted to MIT, then there's no reason the government can't put them in a higher strata of assistence. This is done with hundreds of government programs - why not this one? >>"There is no guarantee that such a huge investment, which could only happen by way of taxes increasing, as my opponent admits, would prove to be worthwhile." It is a fact that persons with a college education make more money (on average) than those that do not. When people make more money, they pay more taxes. It's pretty clear that there is a relation between education and tax income for the country. >>""There is a definite correlation between the investment in education and the literacy rates and success of a country." -What might this correlation be?" It would seem self evident that when a (successful) investment is made in education that literacy and competency rates in a country would rise. Foreign governments outspend the US on education, an the US finished LAST in the most recent international physics olympiad. >>"Whatever happened to self-made men (or women), self-reliance, and self-responsibility? The primary problem with socialism is that once you are getting the "free ride," as it were, that many, many people do not want to get off. Shall the government in turn provide graduates of their free-tuition system with jobs if they are unable to find one themselves? Why not: they got them into college in the first place." I'm not entirely sure what the self-made man and self-relienace has to do with this as a whole. Those are American philosophies, and you admitted in the previous sentence that this resolution did not deal with the United States exclusively. Therefore, introducing American philosophy is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument writ large. >>"I agree that the applicant pool will be larger; of higher calibre I am not so certain: the more applicants there are, the lower their average calibre would be. That's a simple law of statistics. More students, larger classes, etc, less quality of services rendered (education)." I will admit you have a point with the higher caliber issue - I must admit I misspoke. The pool itself will not be higher caliber, but the accepted pool will be. Institutions will take the best they can until they are full. The pool will increase, but there is no reason that schools will reduce the quality of their education - if they grow proportionally and maintain the ratios between students, classes, and professors, the quality will not change. >>"Universities now have breeding programs in line with Social Darwinism? A shock, to say the least ;)" Actually, that would be quite welcome... I merely meant the American workforce. >>"-OBVIOUSLY not. If more people go to school, then more are educated. Of course, educated is not synonymous with intelligent, hard-working, or even contributory in any way to the overall well-being of society." I see - therefore, according to you, the Chinese, Brits, Spainards, Poles, etc... must all be more intelligent than Americans. It has nothing at all to do with their education system and the fact that their college students are of higher caliber on average. >>"Someone somewhere is getting the raw end of the deal - paying the taxes but not having children, paying the taxes while having children but not seeing them benefit because of good economic status, etc. Other societies do as they like, sure, but in providing "free" tuition do they not devalue the education that is sought? Whatever is worth having is worth earning, worth working for, sacrificing for; do we not appreciate what we have worked hard for more than what is simply "given" to us (while at the same time being taken from others)?" The very nature of politics is that there are ALWAYS going to be winners and losers. Are not the losers in the current system those who cannot afford to go to college at all? Why should they be denied a college education in the same country where a high school education is free? Other societies DO do as they like, and their results seem to be eclipsing the United States. Is their education devalued? I'd say not. Our Chinese foreign exchange students at my college spend about 3 or 4 times as long studying for classes as American students because they view their education as so important. >>"Reread "The Republic,"" Indeed, please do. Education in The Republic is the responsibility of the state. >>"and side CON" Indeed please don't. The nexus of Con's argument is that it is "unfair" to people. All political processes are unfair to someone. This is not new news. |
4 | 8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools My opposition should have smoked me in this debate, but had the courtesy not to show up. If he feels any future need to redeem his lost opportunity, I will be available for whatever challenge he wishes to issue. |
36 | bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is not a sport Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, "...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing..." you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of "Croquet", rather than your spelling of "Krokae". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these "sports" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These "sports", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this "sport" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the "sports" you referenced being referred to as "sports" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these "sports" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the "gentleman's sport" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport. |
20 | f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00003-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate milk is healthy. Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too. |
2 | f592b3dd-2019-04-18T18:01:57Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Water fluoridation is safe Thank to Ax123man for his response. Point 1: Conceded, the EPA only regulates fluoride in tap water. Point 2: Neurotoxin There is no generally accepted scientific knowledge establishing a casual relationship between consumption of fluoridated water and central nervous system disorders or effects on intelligence. A seven-year study compared the health and behavior of children from birth through six years of age in communities with optimally fluoridated water with those of children the same age without exposure to optimally fluoridated water. Medical records were reviewed yearly during the study. At age six and seven, child behavior was measured using both maternal and teacher ratings. The results suggested that there was no evidence to indicate that exposure to optimally fluoridated water had any detectable adverse effect on children's health or behavior. These results did not differ even when data was controlled for family social background. [1] Cancer Studies: Conceded as no refutation is given. Point 3: dental fluorosis Still, we only have 22.9% with true dental fluorosis (does not include "questionable" ), and 16.0% of them are very mild. [3] Also, we cannot ignore the fact that there can be natural sources for this, too. Bone fluorosis According to generally accepted scientific knowledge, drinking optimally fluoridated water does not have an adverse effect on the bones. [2] Also, the two animal studies available at this time fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer. [2] However, fluoride has only been used as an experimental therapy for osteoporosis. [2] [1]http://www.tooelehealth.org... [2]http://www.tooelehealth.org... [3]http://www.cdc.gov... |
5 | 4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Universal Basic Income His plan increases the "income effect" compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent's argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent's plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con's plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. "[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers' desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the "welfare to work" reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the "weaker" nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance)."[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con's plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con's claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a "crowd out" effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn't providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent's plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its "cut throat" capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any "positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts."[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only "15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s."[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, "most are in poverty."[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent's counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent's plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found "that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states."[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly... |
47 | a5d6b89f-2019-04-18T12:19:28Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Children should not have homework. Since my opponent has mostly dropped their position, and it's with a logical position: for some students, homework is good and others it is not. There is good logic in that. My opponent did ask about how students view homework, and this is what I found through a quick search: 65% of students view homework as a waste of time, 50% view homework as being overly challenging or simply too difficult, and 29% of the students believed homework was interesting[5]Now, this may not be able to tell us too much, because this is based on how homework currently is. These numbers would likely change if homework was made in such a way where the students got to have a say over what was involved in the homework. I think teachers should just have a overall guideline on what students need to know, and then the students could then create their own homework that teaches them this topic. This would likely increase the amount of students who would find homework interesting(as it's low) since they would get to have a say in what the assignment is. Thus, to reiterate some things, homework shouldn't be completely elliminated, but it should have input from the students so that the students get to do what they believe is most beneficial for them. We don't all learn things the same way, and that would be most beneficial in my opinion, Maybe some students would choose to go without homework, and I think that is fine.Sources:[5]http://ro.ecu.edu.au... |
35 | aab37460-2019-04-18T18:06:44Z-00002-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. I have given arguments for why rape has a negative effect on the victim and a negative effect on the offender.Why it is negative for the victim: Injury Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. Infections Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported. Neurological damage Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development. Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects; Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood; Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse; and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children. Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system. Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected. Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.Psychological harm Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis,chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty, crime in adulthood and suicide. A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations. http://upload.wikimedia.org......; alt="" width="400" height="160" /> http://bits.wikimedia.org......; alt="" width="15" height="11" /> A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.83 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused." Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse. Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism. Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services. A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former. Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children. The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used. The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force. The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children, and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments. Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories. The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse. When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent. Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology. Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.Why it is negative for the offender:Child rape is viewed as taboo in society and offenders are looked as detrimental, they are often demoted and put down, having a negative effect on them. Child rape is also illegal in most of the world's countries, most punishments for such offenses can be:ImprisonmentFinesDeathWhy imprisonment has a negative effect on the offenders:In prisons people spend 23 hours a day in confinement where they eat mediocre food spend time in dirty conditions, numerous cases of inmate-on-inmate rape have been reported, and the bathrooms and showers are filthy and only offer cold water.Imprisonment has a detrimental and negative effect on the victims.....We can conclude that an adult raping a baby has a much more negative effect on both the victim and offender than a baby raping an adult. |
22 | 2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | every problem does not have a solution you cant reverse the irreversible i was thinking heat absorbing wire for the wire, but there is so little heat coming from it, its not really relevant with heat absorption.. you can not reverse death, you cant uncut an apple, you can half something without doubling, you cant give something without taking something they are not problems, but answers.. you dont want to jump from of a cliff high above |
8 | 6702c444-2019-04-18T15:14:03Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Dear Miss, thank you for your fast answering, I will try working through your argumentation and contribute my opinions to it. First of all, I agree that my religious reasoning's are not based on statistics or facts, but simply on beliefs. So seeing you seem to like statistics a lot, I will change my way of arguing from a ethnically point of view to one more fitting for this debate. Seeing that 61% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the fetal heartbeat has begun,[1]which occurs in the first month of pregnancy, I think I am not alone in my beliefs, whether they may be religious or morally or ethnically. 72% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 3 months of pregnancy.[2] 86% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 6 months of pregnancy.[3] Only 6% -17% of Americans (depending on how the question is asked and by whom) believe abortion should be legal at any time, in all circumstances.[4] I am not quite sure if you are one of those 6-17%, but if you are, you are a minority in the USA and that with reason. I can agree that taking the bible into account is risky for a debate. Of course when people refer to something as essential like the ten Commandments, other like to go on and quote quite unfitting verses like woman should not be allowed to wear clothes of different fabrics to go against it. Yes, we all know that there are many quite debatable verses and rules in the bible, it is an old book, written by many, but the ten Commandments are pillars of moral and ethnically ways of living and I think one should be allowed to refer to them without being ridiculed for it by being answered with random quotes just to let the bible appear like a silly, old book. Sadly, even if the dictionary part of your argumentation is quite refreshing, I have to disagree here. There is none to little justification or excuse for abortion nowadays and this is based on a statistic from the Institute Guttmacher: In the last 25 years Guttmacher has conducted two major studies asking women why they chose abortion and their answers have remained basically the same: Only 7% of women report that their abortion was because of a health reason or a possible health problem with the baby, and less than half a percent report that their abortion was because they became pregnant as a result of rape. 92% of abortions in America are purely elective"-- done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.[5] So sadly almost 100% of Abortions are done because of selfishness. Because of irresponsibility or simply because a child would not fit into their life (at the moment). I do not exactly know what to do with your comparison to breaking and entering. I find it horribly disrespectful and slightly disgusting to compare a foetus, a pregnancy to something like breaking&entering. But, I will try argue in your spectrum here: We are talking about a being, about a child. Did it wish to 'enter' your home? No, you decided to let it in. You let the 'door' wide open, because you wished to have unprotected 'party' and then the child is being left in your floor. And you notice it after your 'party' and decide to take a sharp scalpel to scratch the child attached to your floor from it and kick it out of your door, because franky, you have no time or gusto to nourish it and take care of it. This very colourful and picture-heavy argumentation can be quickly used against you, so I would not advice to continue with it. I will not argue further about eggs and chickens here with you. I do not think that you can compare an egg with a foetus in your body. Or any kind of animal with a human being. Furthermore I will refrain from going more into detail about the question of weighing one life with the other. This is, like you are reminding me here, not up to debate. I do not think you quite understand my point of view yet. Yes, a woman should have the right to seek for medical care, I cannot disagree with you, when an abortion is needed because of her health. But because of other reasons, like the ones you just used? Because they are not ready yet? If you are not financially ready? So, you think it is morally justifiable to deny a 'being' (since you refuse to call it human being) to live, because the parents have sex, unprotected (or, like you pointed out, even with protection, but it failing,) and the woman gets pregnant. This is a point I would like to further discuss, because I think that this is the core of it. Young people nowadays brush off responsibilities. Nowadays young people think they cannot afford a child. And who can blame them with the industry and politics offering them all kinds of ways for it? Of course, if abortion is legal, if contraceptives are given out without valid reasons, people lose themselves in irresponsibility, in careless behaviour. They do not think: "How will I be able to live with this new addition to my life, to this change?" - No, society makes them think: "What is the easiest way for me to avoid responsibility for what I have done?" And we cannot even fault them completely for it. Nowadays children are expensive, yes. Nowadays one job barely covers your own costs. Nowadays the concept of family, of life and children and the sainthood of it. So I think rather than legalizing abortion, we should educate our children, our young generation. Instead of shoving abortions, contraceptives or other medical exits at young woman, telling them that they should carry on careless and without regret about consequences " we should try to educate them on healthy family dynamics, we should use money on helping them arrange a life with a child. We should educate them about how to earn and use money the right way, we should not go: Okay, this woman cannot afford a child, kill it when it is still in the womb and does not cost anything. No, I beg to differ! We should ask: "Why?" Why is this woman so desperate, so uneducated, so careless about the life growing in her womb? Why does it not matter to her? Why does her child not matter to her? Why would she rather kill it, or erase it, than carry it out? "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women." --Feminists For Life That is why. This here is why we should not legalize abortion but rather try find the core of the problem. Do not say: Let us give them even more opportunities to continue this kind of life, to be careless and afraid of responsibilities. Say: Let us give them the needed education to be ready for it. Let us give them the help, the money, the support. Let us change so the woman does not need abortion. Let us not take the easy way out. Not when there are life"s, potential human life"s on stake. [1]Zogby International Poll, April 15-17, 2004. [2] Humphrey Taylor, "The Harris Poll #18," Harris Interactive, Inc., March 3, 2005. [3] Ibid. [4] A recent Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus survey found that only 6% of Americans believe "abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy." See "Abortion in America," Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus, July 2009, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www. kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/548612.html. Another survey found that 17% believe "abortion should be legal in all cases. See "Religion and the Issues: Results from the 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey," Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, September 17, 2010 (17% believe "abortion should be legal in all cases"), accessed March 16, 2011, http://pewforum.org.... [5]Lawrence B. Finer et al., 113-14. This survey shows women have abortions for the following reasons: 25% "not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong" 23% "can't afford a baby now" 19% "have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown" 8% "don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems" 7% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young" 6% "other" (this category had no further explanation) 4% "would interfere with education or career plans" 4% "physical problem with my health" 3% "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" -0.5% "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion" -0.5% "parents want me to have an abortion" -0.5% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant" -0.5% "was a victim of rape" |
10 | e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan." Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. "Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion." Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. "Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory." Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. "All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections." You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. "Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis." When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. "Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies." Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations |
14 | 3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...; |
48 | ccb2cd3b-2019-04-19T12:44:47Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The USA Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered to 18 From 21 should the drinking age be lowered |
15 | 2bce8c52-2019-04-18T19:09:45Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal testing should not be allowed. Thoughts on Point #1: Even if animal testing is a double-edge sword, most would agree when I say that testing products on ANIMALS, not HUMANS, is preferable. The end-result may be guaranteed either way, but in both scenarios, humans would be harmed last which means we have least room for error, albeit the non-precocious mistakes of scientists. Also, I am unsure as to how animals may contract HIV/AIDS in the first place, seeing as how its a human-benefited thing only. I am skeptic of the scientist in question's abilities, seeing as how monkeys would not need a vaccine for HIV when it is impossible for them to ever receive such STDs. As for the "positive changes...[which] have not occurred," I may require some enlightenment on that topic, as I have this feeling that animal testing has incurred much more positive and beneficiary changes to the way modern medicine is developed. Not only modern medicine, but also an entirety and array of other consumer-use products, such as cosmetics and clothing (although that is a much more provocative subject). "A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. In fact, about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic research." - http://www.buzzle.com... "Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing." - http://www.writefix.com... If your whole argument is based on cruelty and future "what-ifs" I think that it is clear as to what the majority of the scientific community thinks on this issue, granted that whilst morality is a major concern, animal testing WILL and HAS benefited not only HUMANS but also ANIMALS too. Thank you. |
19 | c69ebdd9-2019-04-18T13:14:29Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment == Legal Arguments == Pro does not contest the Supremacy clause, and his entire argument crumbles under Marbury v. Madison [1].This was a landmark SCOTUS case in which the Court formed the basis for judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. A federal court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has claimed the final word on what the Constitution means, so state provisions that conflict must yield to those interpretations. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.— U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.— Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13Pro claims there is little to no link between gay marriage and Loving v. Virginia. That is false. The Supreme Court's decision on marriage is based on the premise that there is a "fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person" to marry. That right requires that the person be able to choose who to marry. "This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause" [2].I should also point out that Pro's reference to Title VII is entirely moot, seeing as how that is a legal standard for EMPLOYMENT [3]. Every single one of his arguments on why sexuality should not apply to Title VII is irrelevant. Pro misrepresents the definition of "discriminate" and claims discrimination is only valid against the demographics protected under Title VII which is #1 wrong and #2 irrelevant. Discrimination is 100% legal and protected by the first amendment. It is only illegal in the case of employment, hence Title VII, and this debate has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with employment. Pro then goes on to claim that gay marriage is immoral. That's interesting because he specified that he did not want to argue the merit of gay marriage, but whether or not the USFG (SCOTUS) has the legal authority to implement gay marriage at the federal level -- which I've already proven that they absolutely do. So for now I'll finish explaining why the USFG should acknowledge gay marriage, and then I'll address my opponent's points on the morality of gay marriage. Many decisions by Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the Tenth Amendment to protect the powers that states have traditionally used as part of government that operates closest to the people themselves. "The bans on same-sex marriage in Tennessee and other states, the SCOTUS ruling said, must yield to that Amendment's guarantee of equality in how a law applies to the most intimate relationship between people – that is, the choice of a life partner in marriage... From the Supreme Court's view of the matter, this was an extension of the constitutional idea that race cannot be used as the basis for access to marriage (and divorce). The idea that people of different races cannot marry was ended by the court in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Since then, the category of people who cannot be excluded from equal legal opportunity has been extended to gay people" [4]. == Moral Arguments ==Pro fallaciously appeals to tradition in order to distinguish moral right and wrong. Just because marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman does not make it the moral absolute. After all, interfaith and interracial marriages were once banned by law, but we recognize that assuming the ways of the past are automatically correct is illogical. Pro is wrong anyhow about marriage being between a man and a woman in every culture throughout history. Indeed various types of same-sex unions have existed all over the world throughout the ages, including ancient times through present modern day [5]. My opponent goes on to claim that "false marriages" are not recognized under the law, i.e. marriages involving children. This is irrelevant because the entire debate is about whether or not gay marriage should qualify as a false marriage. And why should it? Once again, marriage has been ruled 14 times as a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals. Pro has not proven that gay marriage is immoral, but rather gays do not have federal protection under (some) aspects of the law such as employment discrimination. Pro writes, "Gay people would not be denied accomidation or equal protection undeer law if we chose not to acknoledge gay marriages." --- This is a completely nonsensical and redundant statement. He just said that gay people would not be denied equal protection if we chose to deny their equal protection. Che? What? Huh? Essentially Pro's case is that barring gay marriage is legitimate discrimination, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under an irrelevant employment standard. But I noted that Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which the Court concludes that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner. Children do not qualify; they cannot enter legal contracts. However Pro has failed to prove or even explain why gay marriage in particular is immoral. He has only appealed to tradition and the (irrelevant) laws already in place. Since we have a few more rounds to discuss, I'll let him try and address this moral issue if he so chooses.I've already won the legal argument; the Supreme Court does have the authority to make gay marriage the law of the land.[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] https://www.eeoc.gov...[4] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
16 | f0f76624-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Before I begin, please allow me to clarify that I sympathise with the plight of my opponent's family member, and that I am equally angry at the poor conduct of her doctor. However, this will not affect the way I approach the resolution. As my opponent has not proposed a formal resolution in the form of a declarative statement, I will take the topic sentence of his paragraph as the resolution:The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Thus the burden of proof is on my honourable opponent to prove that doctors have to bear the greatest responsibility in the rise in prescription drug abuse. As my opponent has not delineated a set of rules for the debate, I will take the liberty of presenting my opening arguments and refuting some of the arguments my opponent has presented. I will welcome any attempts to present and clarify the rules of this debate by my opponent, for (s)he is the instigator. Constructive arguments1) Doctors are not responsible for the underlying causes of drug abuseThe motives behind prescription drug abuse can generally be summarised thus: (1) To feel good or 'high', and experience the metal effects of the drug To relax or relief pressure To reduce appetite, boost vigilance or improve academic performance As a result of addiction To 'fit in' Even if doctors did not misprescribe, as long as these motives exist, there would always be ways for drug abusers to obtain drugs, such as by receiving drugs from those who have not fully used their medication during previous treatment processes. Conversely, without such motives, there would be no incentive for drug abusers to abuse drugs, even if there were doctors prescribing drugs improperly. This shows that doctors should not be held responsible for drug abuse itself, which should be blamed on the abusers. The rise in drug abuse should be attributed to reasons why more people are having such motivations, and not to the doctors who are simply doing their job by prescribing drugs. 2) Doctors are not responsible for the availability of drugs to abusers. The majority of teenagers who abuse prescription drugs get their drugs from relatives or friends who have been prescribed the drugs; thus doctors did not prescribe any drugs to them. (2) Thus doctors are not responsible for the fact that they have these drugs at their disposal. Even in the event where the abuser was prescribed the medicine and decided to over-dose or to use the drugs for other purposes (such as 'getting high'), the doctors have only prescribed drug according to the patient's needs: if those drugs had been taken exactly as prescribed, there would be no quantity of medicine available for future abuse. Therefore, they should not be held responsible for the availability of excess medicine, which ought to be the fault of the patients who did not take drugs according to doctors' instructions. Rebuttals 1) Explanation at the beginning'So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. 'My opponent states, at the beginning of the paragraph, that the prescription of narcotics by doctors causes the rise in prescription drug abuse. However, (s)he has not yet given a clear explanation of how this has happened. It appear that (s)he has not explained this causal link clearly. By 'I am baffled at how', (s)he seems to imply that the causal link is obvious and 'goes without saying'; however, I fail to see this relationship. 2) Example of the family member's incidentMy opponent has given a detailed account of the personal experience of a loved one. However, I contend that one isolated example alone cannot prove the resolution, which is on the rise of prescription drug abuse, and implies the rise of drug abuse in society as a whole. To conclude that rampant prescription drug abuse is caused by doctors is, therefore, to over-generalise. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that his or her family member's case was related to drug abuse at all. She did not 'abuse' her drug in any way; she was simply following the prescriptions of a registered doctor, and in fact, she used fewer drugs than needed on some days. This alone is sufficient to prove that she had not abused the drugs. My opponent states that she had become addicted to the narcotics. While this may be true - it may not be, for she has terminated all her uses of narcotics and resolved not to utilise such medicine again - it does not follow that this is a case of drug abuse, which is the action of using drugs one should not be using, or using drugs in excess quantities. Addition is merely a state in which a body has become dependent on a substance or activity, or to be more precise, 'Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance' (3), and there is no necessary implication that the addict acts on the addiction. ObservationsMy final observation is that even if my opponent can show that this type of misprescription leads to drug abuse, it does not necessarily result in a rise thereof; it is therefore his/her responsibility to show that there has been an increase in misprescriptions which has led to an increase (positive change) in the number of drug abusers. (1) . http://cliniquemedecine.com...(2) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... |
18 | b2629620-2019-04-18T18:08:01Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Libertarians should vote for Romney Sources:http://www.imperfectparent.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...In theory, it seems like Gary Johnson would be the best man to vote for in order to get the voices of Libertarians into government. In fact, I will agree that Gary Johnson is the best man for the job if you want a president that supports the policies that a Libertarian does. This debate, however, is not about who best embodies the Libertarian agenda. It is about who a Libertarian should vote for. And that man is Mitt Romney. Here's why:1. Look at history.Something very similar to what might happen if Gary Johnson gets a large following already happened in American history. The election of 1912. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and came in second place. Taft ran as a Republican and came in third place. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, won. He did not recieve a majority of the votes, 42 percent. The Progressive Party and the Republican Party recieved a combined total of 50% of the votes. Had Theodore Roosevelt not run, the Republican Party would have likely won the presidency. A third party candidate actually had a chance of winning one time, and that chance ruined the election for everyone who swayed Republican. I envision this happening again.2. Mitt Romney is closer to Libertarian Ideas.Here are just a few important issues to compare (I got the chart off of imperfectparent.com, my edits are in italics): The final score is:Republicans: 10Democrats: 6Tie: 2In the face of the fact that third parties have never won the presidency, and that Romney, while not perfect, is the more Libertarian of the two, I declare that Mitt Romney is, in fact, the best choice for a Libertarian for president. Issue Republican Party Democratic Party Libertarian Party Social Security Social security should be privatized (not to be confused with private savings accounts, but rather, private investments). Arguably closer to Libertarian. Social security should remain a government sponsored insurance plan for retirees. Believe in an "opt out" policy in which one can choose to privately invest (they believe this to be the better option) or go with a government sponsored social security plan. Jobs Pro small business. Supports giving small businesses tax incentives so that more jobs can be created.Tie. Encourage businesses to keep jobs here and not outsource them overseas. Supports unions and advocates for the rights of low income workers.Tie. Free market should dictate the job market. Economy Supports free market competition and entrepreneurship, corporate deregulation and cutting entitlement spending.Closer to Libertarian. Increase taxes to cut deficit. Believes large deficit negatively affects government services and that low deficits stimulate the economy. 100% Free Market. Security/Defense Believe in a proactive military and defense. Supports building weapons and technology that serve to protect our nation. Believe that peace is achieved through strong defense. Increase defense and research budget. Believe in a limited missile defense. Oppose nuclear buildup in the U.S. Believe that peace is achieved through worldwide relationship building.Closer to Libertarian. Believe in reducing nuclear arms in the U.S. Military should be used to protect people's livery and property only. Legal/Tort Reform Supports tort reform and limiting victims compensation, especially for frivolous lawsuits. Oppose tort reform and oppose limiting liability of doctors and/or businesses.Closer to Libertarian. Generally does not support tort reform. Tax Reform Supports tax cuts, low interest rates and the repeal of the death tax penalty in effort to stimulate the economy.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Generally supports raising taxes on the wealthy, lowering taxes for the middle class. Stridently opposes all government imposed taxes and employer withdrawal of employees money for tax purposes. Immigration Generally supports closed or tight borders and tracking system for foreign travelers. Support illegal alien's ability and right to become citizens and giving them more protections under the law.Closer to Libertarian. Support open borders. Faith Religion strongly associated with Republican party. Advocate free exercise of religion. Strict adherence between the separation between church and state. Promote secular issues and a more secular nation.Closer to Libertarian. Strong belief in separation of church and state and by contrast, Libertarians hold a strong belief in freedom of religion. Education Promote school choice/vouchers and homeschooling. Supports voluntary student supported prayer in school. Opposes gender and race quotes in colleges.Closer to Libertarian. Oppose vouchers. Increase NCLB federal funding. Enact new taxes to decrease class size and hire new teachers. End government financial support of public schools, believe that all public schools should be privatized with tax credit for tuition. Abortion Generally pro-life with emphasis on promoting alternatives to abortion. Generally pro-choice owning the mantra, "Safe, legal, rare."Closer to Libertarian. Adamantly pro-choice but oppose any government financial aid to subsidize abortions. Energy Oppose Kyoto treaty. Support tax incentives for energy production.Closer to Libertarian. Wish to find environmentally friendly energy sources and solutions. Oppose increased drilling, especially in the U.S. Supports deregulation and believes all government energy resources should be turned over to private ownership. Opposes government conservation of energy. Heathcare Keep healthcare private. Would like to impose caps on malpractice suits. Supports reformed medicare to give seniors more choices.Closer to Libertarian. Supports more federally funded healthcare programs. Strongly supports a complete separation of healthcare and state. Supports the deregulation of the healthcare industry. Foreign Policy Spread Democracy. Supports UN reform. Wants to stop WMD proliferation countries. Believe that nations who support terrorist are just as bad as the terrorist themselves.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Strongly supports worldwide coalitions and multi-national programs. Supports aid for disadvantaged countries. Supports the UN. End all foreign aid because it's the same as welfare for nations. Believes that aid perpetuates independence on your government. Campaign Finance Reform Generally support soft money contributions from individuals but supports limiting it from corporations. Also supports full disclosure.Closer to Libertarian. Favor more regulation with spending limits on individuals and corporations. No restrictions on contributions form any legal resident. Believe that politicians holding an office should not be able to run for another seat until term is over. Environment Supports privatizing federal land. Believe in cap and trade market based air pollution reductions and that the market should regulate itself.Closer to Libertarian. Generally puts the interest of the environment over business. Wants to maintain federal land under government control. Believes that land and animals should be sold to private organizations or ranchers and taken out of the hands of the government because private citizens will care for it better. Guns Limited gun control.Closer to Libertarian. Strict gun control. No control whatsoever. Gay Rights Oppose gay marriage. Supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Generally supports gay marriage although Democrats remain largely divided on the issue, as some only support civil unions.Closer to Libertarian. Pro private choice and equality including marriage. |
46 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
20 | 1d0cb0ff-2019-04-18T18:00:45Z-00003-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke Now you are off on another subject. The title is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. What part of that do you not comprehend??? I never said it was healthy and as I said in the first round I don't think others should be responsible for our poor health choices. If I want to kill myself with poor choices that is my right. My eating BBQ ribs everyday does not effect the rest of the world! Bill Clinton had two stents inserted into one of his coronary arteries in February of 2010 because he loves ribs and that was on taxpayer dollars. Who complained about that? GOD gave us freedom of choice. Is the American government above GOD? How do they have the right to decide things for us??? |
29 | 152a53f-2019-04-18T12:42:52Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America I don't 100% disagree with you either. My opinion is that the best way for the United States to address the issue of illegal immigrants is through reform of the immigration/citizenship process...I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult, costly, and time consuming it is to move to the the US. These issues are things we need to work on. I don't think " handing out citizenship" is the best way to describe the reform happening in the U.S. recently. It gives a path to citizenship (so they are allowed to go to college and pay taxes, hooray!) through background checks and lots of hard work, and require the person to have lived in the U.S. for a long time. I argue that this type of legislation allows immigration officials to focus on the people who may actually be dealing drugs. What specifically would you do to reduce illegal immigration? |
3 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
14 | 7e102e28-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00001-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Transgenderism should be considered a mental illness. Transgenderism already meets one criteria of the definition of the provided definition of mental illness( i.e. being known as a disorder). Transgenderism definition according to Google: a state or condition in which a person's identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional ideas of male or female gender. Another (much more transparent and coherent) definition is: Transgender- used as an umbrella to describe anyone whose identity or behavior falls outside of stereotypical gender norms. More narrowly defined, it refers to an individual whose gender identity does not match their assigned birth gender. Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation (attraction to people of a specific gender.) Therefore, transgender people may additionally identify with a variety of other sexual identities as well [1] Transgenderism is not the illness- dysphoria is. Transgenderism is merely the idea that males can feel they do not fit the mould of what is deemed to be 'masculine' at least partially yet still be male nonetheless, and the opposite (women and 'feminine') is also true. Therefore, a man with male genatalia can still be so without describing himself as 'masculine'. He can even say that he feels more in touch with feminity than masculinity, but that doesn't make him any less of a man physically or mentally- i.e he still identifies as a male, as 'assigned' at birth, but is 'effeminate' in mannerisms etc. In simple terms, transgenderism is simply the idea that gender is a spectrum, with feminity and masculinity at opposite ends with which one can map themselves onto, with the majority of people probably not choosing to put themselves too close to either end, meaning they do not feel entire masculine nor entirely feminine. It is a delusion to believe that you can change your sex by receiving surgery since the surgery is virtually genital mutilation. Transexuals are well aware it (gender reassignment surgery)doesn't make them a cis male/female. However, biologically, they might argue this, though a minority (apostates) agree they aren't 'real women' in either a biological nor in a post-operative sense[2]. After all, trans girls won't deny the fact they were born with a penis instead of a vagina and vice versa for trans men. Surgery is simply a way to make them feel more complete as a woman/man despite their obvious previously missing attributes. They know that their chromosomes will never be any different to the chromosomes they had as a baby. But biology doesn't determine whether you're feminine or masculine, only the genatalia you posess at birth. Gender reassignment isn't a solution- transfolk don't stop being trans after gender reassignment. It isn't a cure[3]. I cannot argue that gender reassignment isn't mutilation because it is; the genitals of someone who undergoes the surgery will be disfigured in comparison to what they looked like/acted prior to the operation. Summary: transgenderism is the concept that one can feel more feminine/masculine while still identifying with their biological sex or without identifying with their biological sex. Dysphoria is the illness associated with people who those who feel that they shouldn't have been born with the sexual organs that they possess. Transgenderism isn't an illness but dysphoria is. ---- 1. https://www.genderspectrum.org... 2.www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/gender_critical_trans_women_the_apostates_of_the_trans_rights_movement.html 3. http://www.wsj.com... |
9 | e2027ef-2019-04-18T11:51:30Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | school unifroms should not be banned Don't you get it?Let's say there's a soccer match and everyone is wearing the same thing.People will support their own team.While if they are wearing casual,some may go to an extent of supporting the other team.This makes them less proud of their school.I think you haven't researched enough on non-uniform schools.Students force their parents to buy new clothes every now and then to impress their friends which wastes money!It seems you don't know that there are different types of bullies.Some are clothing bullies.By the way I said it reduces bullying.I think you don't want to wear the same things as others are wearing because you are a show off.School is a place of equality.No matter what race you are from or what clothes you wear.Non uniform schools defy this rule.A lower class family's child may get bullied of what they wear.In addition to that safety is more important than comfort.I think you don't understand this.I also want to add another point.Uniforms increase expectations of student from themselves.They tend to behave better when dressed neatly.Also ,some students may break the school dress code and may end up wearing inappropriate clothes.Give me some ways in which students can be identified apart from uniforms.Uniforms have improved attendance .Poor children feel uncomfortable going to school because they will be mocked at!How would you feel being one of the poor children?School uniforms create pride.Children feel proud of themselves.By the way they also remove dress competitions or peer pressure.For your information,86 percent of the parents in US support uniforms.School uniforms reduce gang activity.For example,there might be a gang of blue.Students must wear blue.Moreover school uniforms are a source of protection.An intruder can be easily identified at a school where there is uniform.While in non-uniform schools,the intruder may disguise him or herself as a student.Also students may wear T shirts saying bad stuff.Like you are my slave . |
48 | c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Voting Age Ok... I'm talking out my *** here man...... You make damn sure you get to that voting booth when you turn eighteen!!! If you pay taxes, then you damn well have a right to vote for the crook who is imposing the tax! Any other view is just hogwash..... |
44 | 481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Hello. I am glad to be debating you on this very controversial issue. I want to start off by saying that Columbus Day means much more than the discovery of America. It is more of a symbolic holiday - one that celebrates what was to come: democracy, freedom, the United States. I can see why you are against Columbus Day, and why we should abolish it. But I believe, firmly, that abolishing it is not only disrespectful but senseless. Let me explain. Although Columbus did not discover America, he did bring it into the limelight, the first to do so. The arrival of Columbus brought forth the beginning of recorded history in the Americas. This is an achievement worth celebrating. The arrival of Columbus also brings to light the achievements reached during the Renaissance. Discovering America allowed new exploration ideas to bloom. Discovering America permitted people to move and ideas to spread beyond the reach of Europe, Asia, and Africa. These ideas include innovations in agriculture, in medicine, in art, in music, in religion. And, most importantly, government. Columbus Day has been an important part of our past, another reason to celebrate it. The tradition of Columbus Day began in 1792 - the 300th anniversary of his first voyage. Many other historic events have occurred because of Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 to honor the 400th anniversary of Columbus. President Harrison declared Columbus Day a legal day that year. The US has also traditionally admired Columbus - the proof is in the facts. Look at all the cities named after him - Columbus, Ohio for example. The US also possess the most statues of Columbus in the world. If we are going to commemorate him with all these statues and cities, it stands to reason that we have a legal holiday to celebrate his major accomplishment. Should we rename Columbus and take down the statues because Columbus did not discover America? Also, Columbus Day is the only holiday the US recognizes the heritage of an estimated 26 million Italian Americans - which accounts for the fifth-largest ethnic group in the nation. All of these reasons were pulled off of http://www.osia.org.... This is a great website and outlines my argument perfectly. Now, I know what opponents of Columbus Day used as their reasoning - that "Columbus is responsible for the enslaving of millions, and the death of millions due to illness."I argue against the reason - it is ridiculous. Let's see - America was responsible for the enslaving of millions of Africans. America was responsible for the death of millions of Native Americans. America was, and is, responsible for tens of hundreds of wars in which we kill millions to gain nothing. But does that mean we ought not to celebrate the Fourth of July? Or Independence Day? No, we ought to - it is a symbol of freedom. A symbol of hard work. A symbol of the great nation that was built from this land. In the same way, Columbus Day celebrates the introduction of new ideas into the Americas. It celebrates new innovations in medicine, in agriculture, in government. And while America wasn't really discovered by Columbus, he did bring it into the limelight. He was the first to do this with his voyage across the Atlantic and should remembered for it. |
45 | 652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00000-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The Penny Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win! |
12 | 8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00005-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | teens should beallowed to get birth control let me start off by saying the should. my reasons are because face it teens are going to do what they want. their are going to have sex f you want them to or not. because of that factor i think they should be allowed birth control on top of safe sex to decrease the teen pregnancy rate. i will go into further detail when an opponent comes into the picture. |
48 | c209eb96-2019-04-18T18:55:06Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lower Drinking Age and show why I've won. First lets look to the military point, my opponent claims that there is no difference between this and the choice to drink; but look and you'll see that he agrees that this is a moral choice, and not one of pleasure as would be he choice to drink. with-out a military the United States could not survive, we would be invaded and taken over, this justifies a persons desire to join the military whereas it does not justify drinking. Second my opponent claims they're where actually trying to advocate that the legal drinking age should be lowered not heightened (as I would assume they where) But the attack they made toward me in this regard is not synonymous with this desire; they've made a grave mistake which will cost them the round. Third, most people have their entire lives to be primed to join the military. at young ages feelings of patriotism are instilled within them. by the age of eight most people have fully developed their moral standing (which granted can change over time) whereas drinking is not primarily an issue of morality, but of pleasure. fourth, my opponent only proves that alcohol kills brain cells, he does not prove the drinking age should be lowered; but instead this logic points that we ought to abolish drinking all together. and if you know your history, that would lead to mass crime. so in closing, I urge to vote for the Con, as my opponent utterly fails to prove their point that we should lower the drinking age, but instead spent their time between bashing the military men and women who give up their lives for the protection of the american people, and advocating the ill-effects of drinking. through no logic my opponent has presented should the drinking age be lowered, but instead their logic gives the idea that the drinking age should be heightened, and that we should abolish the military. But instead leave the drinking age alone. |
11 | ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. "Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids? " Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? "" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. "Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. "Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. "The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. " "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law. |
18 | 5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Why churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government. I. The Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. First and foremost, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The implications of such a law to protect the interests of a country that is known for mixing cultures, traditions, and beliefs are more important than ever. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. How is this related to taxation? A local pastor in the Western Appalachian Mountains builds a one-room log cabin near his small mountain community made up of local miners and traders. He is a man of God and desires to share his faith with his small community, a congregation of roughly 15-20 people. Knowing he doesn't collect much from those who can barely afford to pay he opens his mail to find that the State and Federal government are now taxing him for his one-room church. The price is simply too high to afford and thus he is forced to close the doors or suffer the wrath of the IRS. In this instance, not only did the government shut-down his freedom to express his religion, but it crushed the possibility of giving this small community a safe place where they might hear words of inspiration. Without the Constitution, where would we be as a Nation? Would we truly have come to take these freedoms we have now for granted? Let us not forget that we fought against the Monarchy to set ourselves free from oppression from governmental entities who abused their power. We have fought for the right to build our temples for worship, we fought for the right to stand on our church stages and preach our beliefs to the masses without the government standing over our shoulder telling us what or what-not to say. If we truly relinquish the power back to the governments by allowing taxation, what more does that accomplish other than handing over one of the last safe-zones we truly have in this Nation of ours? Freedom from Governmental control and impressions. II. Safe-Zones As an American who is now living in a society engulfed in Post-9/11 paranoia, I've always taken comfort in one thing: The fact that if another great world war consumed our planet, that there will always be one building left standing- The Church. It is now a well-known fact that no matter how great the tensions or however great the animosity was between warring nations, the unspoken agreement to avoid churches during bombing raids was carried out and practiced. No matter how differing these nations were in terms of cultural traditions and beliefs, we were able to find a common ground upon which everyone could agree that in the game of war, churches were not to be touched. But why weren't the churches bombed? For some reason, the most untouched buildings in every country throughout the time of WW2 was that of religious organizations. Firstly, unlike political ideologies or cultural traditions, churches and religions transcend beyond the scope of political influence. Secondly, I believe the morality in soldiers during a time when churches meant more to them than the enemy should not be ruled out – even soldiers feel empathy or a personal respect garnered within them since childhood if they themselves grew up with the tradition of attending church. III. Most churches are used as places of worship for religions that predate modern government. Respect your elders. While one can argue that most churches were built after the American government was formed, the fact remains that the church buildings built represent something far older than any form of our federal government. If we look at all the main religions practiced in America today we have: Christianity – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,000 years. Judaism – A tradition continually practiced for about 5,700 years. Buddhism – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,500 years. Islam – A tradition continually practiced for about 1,400 years. Hinduism – A tradition continually practiced for about 7,000 years. American Federal Government – 227 years old… The fact remains that a majority of church buildings we see today are built upon the foundation created by these age-old religions. In medieval Europe we see the destruction brought about by letting the church gain so much influence that it, in theory, was able to control the direction of the society at that time. With that being said, the balance that has seemed to work in our own modern society is one of equality and separation. By remaining free from governmental influence, the majority of world religions have been able to spread to provide a safety net for those fearful of the unknown. To provide individuals with the freedom to continue on their journeys throughout life knowing that they have a safe place to return if the pressure of life ever overwhelms them. This goes both ways, by remaining separate – the government has been able to remain in power over the influence of the people in terms of shaping the direction we head as a Nation. History has proven that in order for a balance of harmony to be achieved between the church and state, in terms of dominating society's direction of progress, a separation is necessary. The issue we face now is being able to learn from the mistakes we made as a collective throughout history. We have broken the cycle of war for influence between the two and in doing so, we have been able to achieve more technologically, scientifically, and emotionally than ever before in history. To repeat the mistakes would make us no better than those who have come before us, in the name of progress we have finally found a synthesis between the two that actually works, and I will forever stand by my position that we should continue on this path of separation if we are to continue on our path of forward progress. IV. Desperate times call for desperate measures? I like to call it how I see it: The American Government spends more funding on War-time efforts than the next 10 most powerful nations combined. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... With that said, what good does handing more money over to the government really achieve? Do you honestly believe that money will be used for rebuilding our infrastructure? Do you really believe that money will be used by the government to feed the homeless or help the poor? On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld came out to a press conference and made a startling, if not, horrifying revelation: The Pentagon had lost 2.3 Trillion dollars. That's right, not billion – but TRILLION. This isn't "lost" as in, profits lost, but rather "lost" as in *poof* it disappeared with no apparent traces to follow. I will provide the link so you might hear it from the horse's mouth directly: (Please see Youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... It is not uncommon for a church to host community events – for instance, as a young child growing up in a Baptist church one of my fondest memories was heading to the local housing projects with my fellow church members and giving the families there free Thanksgiving turkeys so that they would be able to enjoy a meal for the holiday. The money used for such a charity event came from nowhere but the weekly contributions we made to the church. We cannot deny the fact that a majority of churches use their profits for good rather than selfish reasons. A majority of the time, these profits are spent on either people of the congregation in need or the church itself if repairs to the building or renovations are necessary. We musn't forget that churches are business's as well, if they can't receive funding from the government, why on earth should they be left with nearly nothing after the proposed taxes? I do not believe the corruption of the majority of churches outweigh the corruption of the federal government. The profits the federal government would make with the taxes would be better spent by the churches who would truly be able to help their local communities with the additional funds. Ultimately, It will be up to the audience to determine whether our nation has stooped so low in its economic woes that we must now tax the only organizations left in our world that truly supersede that of our own government in terms of personal guidance and safe haven. By opening the door to government oversight, we are allowing our houses to be raided by a foreign entity. The moment our churches are taxed, we forfeit our right to use them as neutral zones if there was ever another great war to break out. We forfeit our right to speak our minds and practice our faith in the security of closed doors. We cannot allow our only common ground with the nations of the world to be raped of its dignity by allowing government influence to enter its realm of authority. Remember, it is our freedoms that we fought for that allows us to develop thoughts freely without governmental control. We won our right to remain separated from government influence- at the cost of countless human lives, all of whom we are descendants from. To allow the taxation of church would mean that all their lives lost would have been in vain. Taxation is nothing more than a quick fix to a problem that requires a much greater, long-term solution. We must stop being enablers with these quickfix tax solutions and fix the issue at the root cause - responsible spending. |
47 | 3427d4f1-2019-04-18T19:44:02Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | is homework bad He's walking like a small child But watch his eyes burn you away Black holes in his golden stare God knows he wants to go home Children of The Damned He's walking like a dead man If he had lived he would crucified us all Now he's standing on his last step He thought oblivion well it beckons us all Children of The Damned [x3] Now it's burning his hands he's turning to laugh Smiles as the flame sears his flesh Melting his face screaming in pain Peeling the skin from his eyes Watch him die according to plan He's dust on ground what did we learn You're Children of The Damned Your back's against the wall You turn into the light You're burning in the night You're Children of The Damned Like candles watch them burn Burning in the light You'll burn again tonight Children of The Damned |
29 | cac6bf25-2019-04-18T18:34:08Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Illegal Immigration Rebuttal 1: "He talks about the amount of illegal immigrants that are currently in American prisons as a result of crimes, but the problem with his case is that he does not compare this to the amount of illegal immigrants that are in the country." The point I was making on American prisons has nothing to do with the number of illegals living in the country, it has to due with the fact that are illegals in American prisons that WE the registered citizens of this country are paying for when they should not be here in the first place. That fact that WE pay for them to be in our prisons is bad and that they should be deported. So my opponent's first rebuttal falls right there. Then my opponent turns to Newt Gingrich and his plan to get rid of illegal immigrants living in the country that provide a threat to our nation. Despite his plan, Newt is not the president, Obama is. Rebuttal 2: First off, I would like to say that my opponent has placed no links in the rebuttal he/she made. Thus, there is no evidence for her to backup on that what she is saying is actually true. "This human capital can come in the form of not only illegal immigrants working in the jobs that no one wants to work in,...." I am sure the 9% unemployed really want to work in jobs right now to get money to live. "....acquire diplomas and other required pieces of education, and they can become functional inputs in the private sector, increasing the revenue of firms and allowing them to expand to more labor." This would take the opportunities citizens in the country who wants to go school and get education. One problem with my opponent's statement is that he/she first states that the illegal immigrants could work for jobs no one wants. I would assume that these are low income jobs. Then my opponent states that illegal immigrants have the opportunity to go to acquire diplomas and so on. So if an illegal immigrant is on a low income job how do they afford college? Not many illegal immigrants have enough money and are educated enough for these jobs, unless they are doing good in the country they live in which makes no sense for them to leave it. From my opponent's argument you can conclude one way that illegals can afford college and that is welfare. As I have already stated before *with evidence* 70% of Texas' illegal immigrant are on the welfare system. Now my opponent has provided no evidence (as I have stated before) so we do not even know the demographics of illegals going to colleges and getting educations that provide them go to into the business, law, and medical sectors. Also, in an economic depression you cut back and can only hire so few and if illegal immigrants are taking job that are needed by actual citizens as well as downsizing wages for those lower class jobs then that means they are not providing a benefit to the nation. My arguments still stand that Americans also lose money for paying a whopping $52 billion on illegals in the education system. Rebuttal 3: While the PATRIOT Act is in place, the lack of a fence on our southern border still allows them to infiltrate the country as well as the cartels. We need to stop them from getting in our country by cutting off this route and making locations where people can cross from border to border if they have the certain things needed to. |
11 | eec78c6a-2019-04-18T12:43:57Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Should illegal drugs be legal. Drugs are not good kids will curse and curse and say mom get your f@#4 a@# over here. Drugs are bad that you will die |
23 | 7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing "sacred" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor. |
35 | 2fba671-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00000-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Do playing violent video games affect your mental health Violent video games do show gore, murder, drugs, alcohol, racial slurs, nudity and foul language. But the most this can do is desensitize you to the prevalence of these things in the real world. If someone knows something is wrong, a video game won't change that. That is, of course, unless that certain someone has a severe mental disorder.I find it interesting that you mentioned the Columbine High School shooting. I looked deeper into the incident's Wikipedia page to find a section called "psychopathy and depression". I think it's very important to mention that Harris was a clinical psychopath and Klebold was depressive and often wrote about suicide in his diary, which supports my claim that violent video games only truly affect those with severe mental illnesses.I found an article that shows a long term study that examined violent media, and whether or not video games and movies are to blame for violence in society. This excerpt here shows the bit about when they studied video games: "A second study into video game violence used data from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to estimate the violent content of popular games from 1996 to 2011. This was then compared with data on youth violence during the same years, with the study finding a correlation between falling youth violence and the popularity of violent games." But you also mentioned raging, and I'll be honest, I get angry at video games. But I've never broken a controller or harmed myself beyond hitting my desk with my fist. It's never been anything serious. It's not a thing that only applies to violent video games either, I could be playing a Mario game and I'll get mad.Sources:http://www.independent.co.uk...https://en.wikipedia.org...I'm also a beginning debater, welcome to the site. Good luck, and thanks for setting this up! |
49 | f858645-2019-04-18T14:53:24Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | should kids be able to drive at 13 years old I am going to start off the second portion of the debate with saying this.You will never know what kids are doing out here now a days.Its so many dangerous things going on out here in the world and so much negativity happening before our eyes. So I believe if a kid was to drive at 13 years old that child might not no what to do.I believe with all this technology and different things kids might actually get in to so many accidents.Skip school because they can drive at such a young age nd go places that they owant to go.Now dont get me wrong I am not saying this about all kids but most kids yes.They dont have no reguard or no respect for authority now a days. So how are they going to have respect while they are on the rode with people. Also even if these kids go to driving school and everything you still dont think they arent going to break the rules? To be honest with you im not going to sugar code nothing 50% of kids at schools break the rules everyday so imagine how they would be on the rode.I dont think that is such a great idea to have teenagers on the rode because half of the time they wont even be paying attention. |
37 | b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. |
24 | da2ddeb5-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Income Tax FairnessFairness is a highly subjective topic. Everyone has a different philisophical view of what is "fair". In my view, the progressive tax is unfair. It discriminates against high income earners by taking a larger percentage of their income. I understand, however, that others have a different view of fairness. The real issue here is whether the government should be taxing based on what the people in government see as "fair" or whether the government should be taxing in a way that maximises the standard of living of the citizenry. I hold that boosting the standard of living of people should be prioritized over tax "fairness". After all, the people in a country with a higher standard of living are certainly better off than the people in a country with a lower standard of living and a "fairer", according to some people's view, tax system. I hold that a progressive tax system lowers the standard of living for a country. Economic Impacts of Progressive TaxationProgressive income taxation has significant negative effects on economic performance. The reason for this is that progressive tax systems have higher marginal tax rates for higher skilled workers, investors, and entrepeuners. These high marginal tax rates discourage these individuals from engaging in productive behavior like working, investing, and taking more risks because the potential reward is reduced. Progressive tax systems also tax businesses at high rates. This means that successful businesses have less capital to reinvest and expand their businesses. It is extraodinarily important to the operation of the price and wage system that successful businesses have the necessary capital to reinvest in new equipment, higher wages, and new jobs. My opponent's economic argument for the progressive tax is that lower income people have a higher prospensity to consume. So, a system that taxes the poor more lightly than the rich would allow people to consume more. However, my opponent has the process of economic growth entirely wrong. Investment, not consumption, drives economic growth. Consumption is the ends of economic growth, not the means. Production and investment are the means. After all, nobody can consume what is not first produced. If there is no or little investment, there will be no or little productivity gains. Progressive tax systems tax away capital and disincentivize capital investment. This makes it very hard for economies with high progressive taxes to grow. The empirical evidence also supports the conclusion that progressive taxes hurt economic growth. In 1989, Reinhard Koester and Roger Kormendi looked at data from 63 countries and found that higher marginal tax rates and more progressives tax systems reduce economic growth [1]. This supports the conclusion that progressive tax rates reduce economic growth. Income InequalityMy opponent claims that progressive taxes reduce income inequality. This may or may not be true. However, income equality is not necessarily a good thing. Most would agree that it is better to be unequally wealthy than equally poor. I have shown above that progressive taxes do decrease the wealth of a nation. My opponent also cites a book, The Spirit Level, that claims that inequality reduces health and other social indicators. However, this book has been widely criticized for statistical dishonesty. Many of the correlations are found to not even exist when using complete datasets. Likewise, the correlations that do exist appear to be the result of a different thing that simply correlates with inequality [2]. In other words, inequality does not create social problems, but some things that are correlated with inequality, like crime, do. RevenueMy opponent claims that progressive tax systems increase government revenue. While I do not support increased government revenue, as larger governments do a lot of harm, it is not true that progressive tax systems necessarily mean more revenue. In fact, a flat tax system would probably bring in more revenue because it would lead to a larger economy with more incomes to tax. Progressive taxes can be low. They also lower economic output which lowers revenue. ConclusionI have shown that a progressive tax system is not desirable. Sources:[1] . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[2] . http://online.wsj.com... |
49 | 1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | 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 |
29 | 5290d330-2019-04-18T17:22:39Z-00005-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | It Is Possible That A Maximally Great Being Exists The Modal Ontological Argument is one that is commonly misunderstood. Many people try to knock down the logic, and fail. People question P3 for example, but this is founded on a basic modal axiom (S5)[1]. The problem with the Modal Ontological Argument is the first premise. First of all, I would like to qualify the different types of possibility, and the possibility relevant to this debate: (i) Epistemic Possibility[2] (ii) Subjunctive Possibility (Modal Possibility)[3] To say something is epistemically possible is to say that it may be true. It might even be subjunctively impossible; we just do not know. This is how most people use the word. However, to say that something like a maximally great being for example, is subjunctively possible (which the Modal Ontological Argument necessitates) is to say that a maximally great being is definitely not impossible. Or, more precisely; it is not possible for it to be subjunctively impossible that a maximally great being exists. That is a basic modal inference. This means, for the theist to meet their burden of proof in support of the first premise, they would have to show that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist. Noone Has Shown God's Existence To Be Logically ImpossibleThis whole section from Pro is based on a fallacy called switching the burden of proof[4]. Since claiming a maximally great being is possible is equivalent to the claim that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist with regards to modal possibility, then the advocate of the Modal Ontological Argument has to show that God is not impossible; the skeptic does not have to show God is impossible. Do We Have Warrant For Accepting God's Existence As Possible? Arguments that exist for God's existence do not show that God's existence is possible. This is a non-sequitur[5]. One can argue for something that is impossible, even if the argument fails miserably, and nobody even knows that the conclusion is impossible. Both lines of argumentation from Pro are fallacious. Thus, they can be dismissed. What Pro Must Do To Establish The ResolutionAs I previously stated, for the theist to meet their burden of proof in support of the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument, they would have to show that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist. To do that, they would actually have to rule out that which would make a maximally great being impossible. What would make a maximally great being impossible? Lots of things. Lets just take for example non-sentient possible worlds (which include no sentient beings). They would make a maximally great being impossible because if a maximally great being is possible, there would have to be at least one sentient being in every possible world. A maximally great being cannot just exist in one possible world if a maximally great being is possible, as a maximally great being would have to exist in all of them essentially by definition if a maximally great being is possible. This follows from the modal axiom S5. Therefore, the theist would have to rule out non-sentient possible worlds before the burden of proof on the first premise is to be met. Now, the theist might be tempted to, but could not say that non-sentient worlds are impossible by asserting that "God exists in every possible world already", because that would assume that the first premise is true, which is the premise the theist is attempting to defend in the first place by trying to rule out non-sentient possible worlds! Thus, this line of refutation to my objection here would be begging the question. Now, I am not making the positive claim that the first premise is false. I have no burden to show that non-sentient worlds are indeed possible, and exist in some possible world as I am not making the assertion that this is the case. I simply assert that neutrality, or non-acceptance on the first premise is more reasonable than acceptance, which is a position I sufficiently supported as true (Pro has not shown that non-sentient worlds are impossible). This means that God's existence has not actually been established by the Modal Ontological Argument in context, as there is a huge question mark hanging over that sneaky first premise. There has to be a reason for the notion that non-sentient worlds are impossible before accepting the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument. This is due to the fact that the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument necessarily depends on non-sentient worlds being impossible. It cannot both be true that a maximally great being (a being who has necessary existence if existing in some possible world) is possible, and a possible world exists with no sentient beings. Non-sentient worlds being impossible is a required foundation of the first premise that remains as nothing more than an unjustified assumption. We are given no reason to think non-sentient worlds are impossible. Also it is in no way self-evident, or intuitively true that non-sentient worlds are impossible. There must be further external argumentation from Pro in order for him to meet his burden of proof on the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument. ConclusionMy opponent's first argument in favor of the resolution was shifting the burden of proof, and his second argument was a non-sequitur. I argued that Pro has to rule out non-sentient worlds as impossible before we should reasonably accept the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument as actually true. This is because these two statements cannot both be true:(1) There are non-sentient possible worlds(2) A Maximally Great Being exists in some possible worldSince (2) rests on the negation of (1), and Pro has not shown that (1) is false; the resolution has not been established. Sources [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.nizkor.org...[5] . http://rationalwiki.org...http://www.youtube.com... |
48 | 2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus their entire case can be considered null and void as of now because they have not responded to my refute. Hopefully, they will post in the next round... |
32 | 4c623861-2019-04-18T18:46:05Z-00001-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy Applying a tax toe everyone in the Uk would be worse than a school charge because the people who would pay the tax would be people who spend more money if every year 16 year olds have �1000 less to spend then it will not affect the economy as mucha as they probably wouldnt spend it on worth while things possibly even drugs.Therefore by applying the charge would also go a small way to reducing problems with drugs in the Uk.Widespread taxes are also likely to affect poorer people in society who already recieve about the same amount as those on benefits an extra tax may make these people more likely just to pack in there job and live on benefits so far from gaining money the government would have to pay out more in benefits. |
36 | 8a2c0d8d-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | FDR was not a great president. Con Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote |
33 | 44b61574-2019-04-18T16:45:15Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food. Con begins her argument by arguing humans have done bad things, and they have done bad things to others because they deemed others as not counting. This argument is incorrect and not valid to the debate. Obviously people attack poultry because the poultry has value. If the poultry had no value ( didn't count ) there would be no reason to breed and kill them. " Be aware I may copy and paste arguments I have made from other debates" Go for it. I've seen your other debates. I would reccomend against it though, based on the fact those arguments aren't pertinent to this debate. Or even the debates they appeared in. For example- In one debate where you argue that eating animals is wrong, you bring up how your family was kicked out of a resturaunt for having a black family member[1]. This appeal to emotion on issues not pertaining to the debate is baffling. The story is also very suspect. In R1 con gave a list of animal attributes and said if I contend any of them she will provide sources. Attributes I contend- 2. Belonging to complex societies- if it doesn't come close to the complexity of human society, then this attribute is deceptive. 6. Possessing great intelligence- please give examples any animal who's intellect rivals DaVinci or Tesla. Having a brain that works differently is not evidence. Con after listing attributes pulled from several different animals to make them seem equal to humans then goes on to list how they suffer to get on our plate. These claims of suffering are a little exaggerated to say the least and the sources are biased. I don't have adequate space to criticize each source individually, but if you look at the PETA source you will see an article on the mistreatment of animals.the article doesn't discuss or mention where their information came from. Con mentions the slicing of a chicken's throat as a form of cruelty. Slicing an animals throat provides a quick death and is probably the most humane way you could reasonably kill any animal. In my opponents immorality section she compares the eating of meat to rape of human women and the holocaust. I don't have anything to add to that statement. My opponent asserts that factory farming is the main source of salmanella and Ecoli. This is obvious seeing as the Ecoli and salmonella come from the animal your eating. Most cases of food borne illness can be prevented in the consumer's kitchen where thoroughly cooking your food and having proper hygiene goes a long way [2] Con asserts that Factory farms play a major role in soil runoff and global warming. When you examine her source though you see it's an article that provides no sources for where the guy gets his information. It appears to just be a propaganda piece on an extremely biased website. Contention 1- Any diet that doesn't involve meat is unsustainable. Going without meat for the rest of your life is near impossible. The alternative to a diet consisting of at least some meat is just not feasible. As many as 75% of people who go on a vegetarian diet give it up[3]. The 25% who remain typically don't last beyond 7 years either. The fact is we need to kill animals for food because there is something in our biology that gives us such an intense urge for this type of food that it is futile to resist it. Contention 2- Plant based diets are bad for the environment. Environmental arguments against meat eating are nullified by environmental arguments against plant eating. About 90 percent of U.S. cropland suffers from topsoil loss at 13 Times the sustainable rate[4]. 92% of U.S. Soybeans ( a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified Soy, immune to herbicides[5]. This immunity allows Soy farmers to douse their fields With large quantities of weed-killing herbicides which are toxic to other plants and fish. Some scientists worry that increased herbicide use could lead to " super weeds "[6]. Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. A 2010 report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that the production of soy-based proteins such as tofu could contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than eating locally produced meat. [12] According to a peer-reviewed 2009 study, giving up all animal products would only give a 7% reduction in green house gas emissions, [13] not enough to be worth the dietary sacrifice. Contention 3- My comfort is more important then any animals. Animals taste good. Unless a reason is given to care about the comfort of animals then any argument that takes into account the suffering of animals is invalid. My argument is that animals should be killed to feed humans. One of the reasons they should be killed to feed humans is because they taste good. If an animal's suffering is to be taken into account before deciding to order a Mcdouble please explain why anyone should care about the suffering of animals slaughtered to provide most people food. Arguments comparing the suffering of humans to that of animals aren't good enough. I have reason to care about the suffering of people. The reason is because protecting the rights of the oppressed actually gives a nice buffer zone to me and by extension protects my rights. Contention 4- vegetarianism isn't neccesarily as healthy as meat eating. My opponent may point out that being a vegetarian is a healthier alternative to meat eating. This is simply not true and it's merely propaganda used by animal rights organizations to lure people away from eating meat. 2 out of every 3 vegetarians are vitamin b12 deficient [7]. Eating meat provides a better source of Iron then a vegetarian diet? The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans [8]. A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef (3 oz.) contains as much protein as one serving of beans (1" cups) or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans (180 vs. 374), and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger. [9][10] Some of these myths of vegetarians being healthier are myths that stem from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health concious. If we stopped slaughtering animals today then forced everyone onto a vegetarian diet then the rate of health concious people to non health concious people wouldn't change, and you would see that mortality rates would remain the same [11]. Contention 5- Killing animals isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing plants Vegetarians mistakenly elevate the value of animal life over plant life. Research shows that plants respond electrochemically to threats and may feel fear, [14] so vegetarians are also causing harm every time they kill and eat a plant. Contention 6- it's almost impossible to eat food without some animal being slaughtered Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields, are killed during harvest. [15] So if your against slaughtering animals so people can be provided with food, then plants and animals are both off the table. What does con propose that we eat? Summary- 1. Animals taste good. Unless reason is given for why an animals comfort should be taken into account by the typical meat eater, then there comfort should not be taken into consideration. 2. The alternative to a meat eating diet is unsustainable. It is futile for most people to resist the urge to eat meat. 3. Environmental problems stem from human consumption regardless of if the consumption comes in the form of plants or animals. 4. Dietary needs are more conveniently met through a diet consisting of protein then one without. 5. Killing plants isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing animals. 6. It's nearly impossible to eat anything without killing an animal. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com... [4] David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, " Sustainability of Meat-Based and Plant-Based Diets and the Environment" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003. [5] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [6] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [7] Wolfgang Herman, et al., " Vitamin B-12 status! Particularly Hobotranscobalamin ll and Methyllmalonic acid concentrations, and Hyperhomocysteinemia In vegetarians," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 2003 [8] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [9] National Cattlemen's Beef Association, "Proteins Are Not Created Equal," www.beefnutrition, 2009 [10] Courtney Hutchison, "Nutritionist Does Twinkie and Steak Diet, Loses Weight," www.abcnews.go.com, Sep. 30, 2010 [11] Jenny Chang-Claude, Silke Hermann, Ursula Eilber, et al., "Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-Up," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers [12] http://vegetarian.procon.org... [13] Helmi Risku-Norja, et al., "Dietary Choices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Assessment of Impact of Vegetarian and Organic Options at National Scale,""Progress in Industrial Ecology, 2009 [14] Derrick Jensen, "The Plants Respond: An Interview with Cleve Backster," The Sun, July 1997 [15] United States Department of Labor, "Industries with the Highest Nonfatal Total Cases, Incidence Rates for Injuries and Illnesses, Private Industry, 1998," stats.bls.gov, Dec. 1999 |
2 | e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00005-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Yes, I think E-cigs and vapes should be regulated. They should be regulated because their target audience is kids they make flavors from almond to tropical margarita that are appealing to kids. Also, They caused the same harm as tobacco and don't help addicts. |
18 | c2b2fdca-2019-04-18T16:51:34Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion should remain legal. My apologies, I did not interpret "I do not care" for not wanting to continue the debate, just a lack of enthusiasm for it. Thank you for challenging and debating me. |
26 | 9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | State Standardized Tests Something you may not understand "countzander" is that this so called "life form" that we call "humans" is someone's opinion. Life is full of them, there are no facts. Let me repeat that, "there are 'NO' facts". To acquire a better understanding let's say that, Student A says that 75% of the earth is covered with water and Student B says that 25% of the Earth is covered with land. While you might be saying to yourself this is TRUE, it actually is not. We really have no clue what the exact measurements of the Earth are. There is such a thing called "human errors". "And, boy! humans have made a whole lot of them." Everything we have today is a mistake, but you know what, if we didn't have it, how would we live? |
9 | 2fd4b8f3-2019-04-18T19:03:09Z-00004-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms are good 1) High Cost of School Uniforms- Uniforms are not cheap and this is a good reason to be against school uniforms. Because children are constantly growing, there is a captive market for new school clothes and manufacturers take advantage. However, large volume manufacturers are producing very cheap clothing for younger pupils at the moment so this argument against school uniforms may not stand up to too much scrutiny. 4) Freedom of Expression is stifled by School Uniforms- A uniform breeds uniformity. We need free thinking children to become the thinkers of tomorrow, not drones who will continue making the mistakes of pervious generations. When we argue against school uniforms we argue against an education system that seeks to produce workers and for an education system that seeks to produce enlightened fully rounded human beings. 3) School Uniforms do not cut down on bullying - No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgment upon their peers. The clothes are not the root cause of bullying and therefore the bullying will continue, regardless of dress policy. No matter what clothing rules apply, students will always find ways to pass judgment upon each other. Also allowing students to choose between a blue and red polo shirt doesn't reduce gangs. Also gangs don't have to show their colors to engage in activities. My source is http://www.angelfire.com... |
33 | e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Eating meat is good for your health My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies."Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5] "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case."The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren't much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com... |
47 | 68a4cf31-2019-04-18T18:58:34Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be banned Let's begin! Research shows that homework is great. Kids to better if their grade was partly homework <1>. It is extremely beneficial to kids. Homework provides a way to review concepts learned in class <2>. "A typical homework-completing high school student will outperform students who do not do homework by 69% on standardized tests. " ~ . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... . Homework teaches discipline <3>. Critical thinking is improved. Homework helps kid learn study habits and teaches time management. Homework also teaches responsibility and develops a concern in studies <4>. Homework gives a chance for students review or learn concepts that they either did not understand or if they missed the class <5>. <1> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <2> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <3> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <4> . http://www.forandagainst.com... <5> . http://www.family-homework-answers.com... We all know that parents dislike their kids when they jump on the couch, scream, or run around the house breaking some items along the way. Homework solves the problem of breaking items. If homework is not banned, items around the house would not be as broken as if homework was banned. ==> Conclusion After reading these arguments, I hope that you can understand why homework is beneficial. I have nothing to refute and defend, so I will conclude my side of Round 2. Thank you and happy holidays! Sincerely, Yami Yugi |
29 | 1c53f908-2019-04-18T16:23:57Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Deportation or Elimination Oh so not only are you a complete idiot but you also happen to be a sick piece of sh!t. Now flight attendant salaries vary as well as locomotive engineers so I do just barely go over the $150000 and that's true Secondly Obama will drive this country into the ground but that irreverent so we could save that for another time. My opponent has created a very weak response with no substantial information other than insulting me so even though my stance on this topic may be audacious and unique, I cannot be punished for my views for debating purposes. My opponent claims that I said the "immigrants are stealing jobs". I never said that in either of my entries in fact I said the complete opposite. I said that the immigrants are NOT working and are just living of the governments money which they steal from hardworking families. Of course their are exceptions but most immigrants are not eligible for many jobs which leaves them with nothing to do except live of the american peoples money. I have witnessed first hand piss poor alcoholics become homeless then all of a sudden be given a home that was bought from families that actually work. This "come to America for a life" motto has become a vicious cycle that if continued more and more money will be sucked out of the working family and into the immigrants hands so they can "live the American dream". My opponent also compares immigrants now coming into a civilized country to the past where civilized Europeans came to a large land mass where the people there were extremely uncivilized and could barely speak to eachother. Times have changed you idiot and its not me that should be deported.... It's you |
24 | f1166b20-2019-04-18T18:31:47Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. We have only three rounds to debate, so I will ask him to only rebut my main argument, and not my rebuttal to his main argument. It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul's economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama's economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I'll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School. Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble's collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well. Keynesian School: Interventionist "economics" that stems from John Maynard Keynes' views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal)[4], economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking[5]. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, "Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine. " That's because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is[6]. Ron Paul thinks the government's role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth. Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It's much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business' profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences. Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama's socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and "stimulus," Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world. Conclusion: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. [1] www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/11/14/this-guy-predicted-the-fi_n_143965. html[2]paulitifact. com/2011/07/08/claim-ron-paul-predicted-the-growth-and-burst-of-the-housing-bubble/[3]www. mymoneycalculator. com. au/news/2011/09/the-european-sovereign-debt-crisis-explained-greece-and-co/[4]. http://truthandliberty.com...[5] . http://www.tommullen.net... |
4 | 139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children The rules that he established are acceptable enough, so I agree with them. Most of his definitions are fine for the debate as well, except my opposition to his definition of "corporal punishment. " I will also provide a definition of "ought. " Corporal Punishment: intentional infliction of physical pain as a method of changing behavior. Corporal punishment becomes abuse if it results in injury. (National Association of School Nurses)Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, especially when criticizing someone's actions; used to give or ask advice. Now, to my debate:Contention 1: Corporal punishment is not proper for child rearing. In order for a parent to fufill his/her full duty as a parent, the parent must provide the most effective use of discipline against a child's behavior in order to be of aid in both the short and long term. Although corporal punishment has been proven to be effective in the short term for at the very least most children, it is utterly useless in the long run and can even end up to be harmful for the child in question. The use of corporal punishment against a child, thus, is not the proper choice for parental rearing of a child and goes against a parent's duty and idealisms of correctness. Sub 1a. Corporal punishment is ineffective in the long-term. The primary intention of corporal punishment is to install discipline in the child and make him/her learn what is correct behavior. The main problem with corporal punishment is that it serves well to discipline children in the immediate short-term, but as a practice to discipline children, it is ineffective to achieving the means as to what the punishment itself was meant to be for. Scientific studies display this well. In E. T Gershoff's 2002 study on the effects of corporal punishment: " She found that CP decreases internalization of moral rules. This is concerning in that parents are more likely to use corporal punishment when they believe the child is at fault for some misbehavior. Thus, using a method that decreases moral internalization to respond to a failure to adhere to internal rules the child should have known is likely to perpetuate the problem. "Gershoff, E. T. Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579In the same study as well as others, Gershoff reports to us that the use of corporal punishment encourages a child's use of aggression: "She found that CP is associated with increased aggression. This is especially troublesome, she notes, in that parents are more likely to use aggression to stop aggression. However, one study showed that use of corporal punishment to halt aggression increased risk for aggressive behaviors by 50%, regardless of whether the parent or the teacher rated the child's behavior. Use of aggression after being physically punished for aggressive behavior is likely to be seen as an escalation of misbehavior, which was also associated with greater use of corporal punishment. Thus, corporal punishment is likely to perpetuate the problem". http://ace.ucr.edu...http://www.coe.int...http://www.nospank.net...http://www.neverhitachild.org...http://www.cyc-net.org...Sub 1b: Corporal punishment can cause physical and psychological harm. In addition to the general ineffectiveness of corporal punishment, the use of it thereof can lead to psychological harm and can go leeways into abuse as a result. These mental afflictions as a result from corporal punishment can result in alcohol abuse, adult psychological distress, and other negative effects in the future. This is not including the effect on the child's use of aggression to assert means. . http://www.questia.com...Also, the line between corporal punishment and abuse is very thin. Corporal punishment can end up resulting in injury as shown in several cases and studies, including the previous Gershoff 2002 study, where she reported the following: She found that CP is associated with increased adult abusive behavior. She reports studies have shown that 2/3s of abusive parent-child incidents begin as an effort to discipline the child and "teach them a lesson. " If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one's child may increase the risk of abuse for one's grandchildren. ". http://www.nospank.net...Sub 1c: There are effective alternatives to corporal punishment. Not only are there so many disadvantages to the use of corporal punishment, but there are also alternatives to the use of corporal punishment that are more effective than corporal punishment. This is mainly shown by the success of European countries that had outlawed corporal punishment and had reducing numbers in the amount of child abuse cases as well as reductions in public opinion where people believed that the use of corporal punishment is required for any child for effective parenting: . http://www.neverhitachild.org...Other experts report on the same thing:. http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.unicefusa.org...Contention 2: Corporal punishment is a violation of human rights. The argument that corporal punishment is a violation of human rights (defined by both European organizations as well as the UN with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is starting to take root, and these leading groups have made the argument that corporal punishment is indeed a violation the human rights of the child:"Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) have progressively condemned corporal punishment, first in penal systems and schools and more recently in the home. Other decisions have also made clear that banning all corporal punishment does not breach family privacy or religious rights. The Court increasingly applies the standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in judgments related to children. "" Once visible, it is clear that the practice [of corporal punishment] directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence. " -- United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child . http://www.coe.int...https://wcd.coe.int...Because corporal punishment can result in injury, the subjection of it to a child is a violation of a child's human rights defined by the Universal Declaration |
3 | a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00002-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Israeli Involvement in 9/11 1) My opponent claims that Jewish insider trading is a normalcy and happens on a regular basis. This is true, but not in the amount of money we are discussing at this junction. Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Authorities believed, and some continue to maintain, that trading insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.—Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options. On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. 2) How can you possibly argue that Mossad agents, (spies) of Israel dancing and cheering at the towers crumbled a coincidence? They were also found to have over 4200 US dollars in cash, and maps of NYC (blue prints) in their van. It is literally impossible for the equivalent of American CIA operatives (Israeli Mossad agents) to be doing this at this exact time and date and it being coincidental. 3) That's exactly my point. This attack is good for Israel because Americans will be in the Middle East fighting "terror with us". What is the US doing now? Bombing Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq etc. The average leader would express condolences, but his immediate response is it would be very good for Israel? 4) Your answer to my argument is that it requires further investigation. Because you have the burden of discrediting my points, you have by default conceded my argument in number 4. I will however follow up and say that I urge you to review this youtube video of the foxnews report on Amdocs and espionage in the United States. http://www.youtube.com... 5) How is the FBI finding a massive spy ring of Israeli nationals a coincidence? 6) We cannot let any government explain anything. Too much trust in government violates our personal sovereignty. We must question those that govern us. Buy relying on government to "educate and take care of us" we take another step toward tyranny. |
26 | 952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00000-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Closing Argument: In my closing argument I will list some reasons for why standardized testing is an efficient way to reflect the academic value of students. 1. Gardner states "achievement data from tests provide teachers with valuable information to improve classroom and student learning". This is yet another quote that supports my claim that the tests to help to improve academics in class rooms. 2. Standardized testing is the best way to know how a student is doing. If schools were to go onto one on one testing it will incredibly time consuming. Also, my opponent said something about a child having problems at home. Believe it or not, a teacher can know if something is wrong from the results of an examination. 4. Standardized tests are also helpful in providing students with the pressure of taking education seriously. Many students want to go to college and they know that in order to get into a respectable college they have to score decent grades in the SAT. This "pressure" will cause them to take education seriously and will be beneficial in the long run. Now, I want to leave my opponent and all voters with this quote, "While there are many purposes that can be served by assessment, they are all secondary to the improvement of student learning." Thanks to my opponent for this great debate and I wish all voters will vote Pro. Thank you. |
2 | a2fd8d2f-2019-04-15T20:24:32Z-00012-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Legalising ensures health care and safe sex. Introducing new 'good' laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics. First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives[1]. Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures. [1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR's 'anti-prostitution pledge', on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013). |
33 | 5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. First, you can't base your theories on our "cavemen ancestors" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time. |
32 | 86f7f43d-2019-04-18T18:18:56Z-00001-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Imabench's vote for my debate was completely wrong First off here is the debate we are talking about:http://www.debate.org..." Imabench voted for awesomeness because of his claim that I didn't have a convincing argument"Which is completely legal....."He completely ignores the fact that my OPPONENT did NOT have an argument at all."Maybe you were looking at a different debate, here is what I saw. Awesomeness started a debate about why personal electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, and laptop computers should be allowed in a classroom, and proceeded on listing 18 reasons about why they would be beneficial to learning in class, which I have rewritten below. The ones I have underlined were the ones that made the most sense to me1 - They have built in dictionaries and tools to improve grammar2 - They can integrate video to make learning more stimulating3 - Some have access to newspapers4 - They save money on textbooks5 - They save money on fictional books6 - Valuable skills in logic7 - Access to educational websites8 - Interactive and extra curricular learning9 - It improves graduation rates in schools that implement these policies10 - It improves Standardized Test Scores in schools that implement these policies11 - Improves writing skills among students in schools that also implement these technologies12 - Twice as many students meet state standards in courses compared to those students who dont have this access to these devices13 - Encourages diversity14 - More interaction in learning (he counted this twice)15 - Peer feedback16 - Can encourage the flow of ideas between individuals17 - Efficient working where students can access work on different computers18 - Improves learning experience19 - Improves grades in 76% of cases where students have access to these gadgetsThat was the Pro's opening arguments, the Con (DeadBrownApple) responded not by showing that personal devices like phones more often are used for social media and prove to be just distractions, or source any evidence suggesting that the Pro's claims are false, and instead bases his entire argument that electronic devices decrease the quality of education, even though Awesomeness showed four times how it has a dramatic increase on it. DBA then starts by saying that the frontal lobes of these students are not fully developed and thus would decrease their performance, but he does not show why students still show improvement in their grades with these devices despite allegedly having undeveloped frontal lobes. Then after that DBA Immediately quotes that "I do agree with the contention that Electronic Devices administered by the school would help in the quality of education. "Which completely nullifies everything he just argued and reinforces Awesomeness's claim that these electronic devices do help students. He then gives a borderline semantics argument about how since the students dont own the devices and are renting them from the school that these devices all of a sudden cant be used as evidence. After that, DBA drops all other arguments, dismisses the rest of them as inelegible since "they can be learned without electronical devices" and then argues that since they dont need those devices that they shouldnt be allowed, even though the Pro only was arguing that they IMPROVE these things. That was round 2, In Round 3 awesomeness responds to the few arguments that DBA did not drop and argues that these devices could be put away so as they would not be used for cheating. DBA then does the unthinkable and then starts to counter the arguments that he had previously dropped in the final round when Awesomeness cannot argue against is and after DBA had already dropped all of those arguments. On top of that poor conduct DBA even finishes the debate by saying, "You basically argued for the wrong thing and therefore it is automatically void. You have lost this debate. At the very least, I hope you understood why you lost this debate."And that alone could have cost him conduct, along with arguing dropped points when Pro could not defend his own points because it was the final round========================================================================================================================================================As for my actual vote, I could have easily given the Pro (Awesomeness) arguments and sources and conduct since the Con (DBA) didnt source any statistics and had very poor conduct, particularly at the end of the debate. But instead I simply gave the arguments point to the Pro (Awesomness) since the con dropped over half of the Pro's arguments, then readdressed them at the very end of the debate, and still wasnt very convincing. So my vote was not only justified, but I was giving DBA some mercy by only giving Awesomeness 3 points when I could have justifiably given him 6. |
41 | 5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Student Loan Debt I am interested in the topic at hand. I wish to debate it only for an exchange of opinion so in the end I can come to a conclusion based upon rationality. Con's Contentions; Parents should be forced to contribute at least an average of $24,000 a year for 4 years towards their child's higher education needs, This would be per child. I understand there are a lot of scenario's as to why a child may not receive money towards a higher education. The child is then left with a couple options, military, scholarships if they do well in school or they can choose to go to a community college if they choose to obtain a higher level of education. My arguments are debated below. Argument; 1. ) The average adult begins their college education at the age of 18 or 19, this is generally some time after the completion of high school. If a parent saves $5,400 per year for 18 years, they would accumulate $97,200. This would be sufficient to pay for the average higher education fee of about $24,000 per year, $96,000 for 4 years. -Let us use a fictional character named Jimmy. Jimmy works a construction job full time (40 hrs a week) making $13.00 an hour. Jimmy is a single dad who resides in California. He then decides that he would like to adopt a child, he knows that he will have to contribute $5,400 a year to their child's higher education. Jimmy's annual salary is $24,960. When I had lived in California my rent for a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house was $700, utilities usually would be $300. So we will go on to assume that Jimmy pays $1,000 a month for housing. This then leaves Jimmy with $7,560 a year. Between my wife and I, we consume $400 a month on food. Annual rate is $4,800, we will assume Jimmy uses the same amount on himself and his child. This leaves Jimmy with $2,760 a year. A. ) "The median household income in the United States is $46,326. Here in California people have a hard time understanding that yes, 50 percent of our population live on $46,000 or less a year. Dual earner households have a higher median income at $67,348. " It is apparent that some one making a below average income is capable of paying for their child's higher education. Now you ask your self, why would any one want to work their butt off only to pay for some one elses well being? The answer is essentially an opinion, maybe the joys of having a child supersedes their will to own all the cool "Knick Knacks". 2. ) What would this do for our families, our society, and our nation as a whole? If Jimmy's parents had paid for his education. Jimmy would not have student loan debt, Jimmy then could pay for his child's education so on and so forth. B. ) The average student amasses over $20,000 in student debt toward their first degree. This being true the $96,000 Jimmy had saved for his child to go to school would eliminate this debt. I am no expert in this field, but wouldn't eliminate student debt keep money flowing in the economy & essentially keep it growing? Not only that but Americans would not have to fear living a life in debt. 3. ) C. ) Let us take a look at our national debt; $13,736,959,182,346.04 (13 Trillion) "The estimated population of the United States is 309,464,240 so each citizen's share of this debt is $44,389.49. " After looking at these statistics & reviewing the average students debt after a higher education, its apparent that student debt is a large contributing factor to this nations overall debt. What If your parents do not want to pay for your education? It is called scholarships, work hard & be rewarded. Military, serve your country and you will reek the benefits of the GI Bill. 4. ) Finally let us take a look at the fact that different levels of education will cost various amounts. Those that require much more money than an average higher education should be allowed to take student loans. This is as long as they are on track to graduate, and their profession should allow them to pay back their loans quickly & offer the society much more. For example; Doctors. 5. ) Why not just let families decide if they would like to pay for their child's education? My rebuttal is this, Human beings are selfish. Maybe selfish is an inadequate word to portray my thoughts. But essentially humans want all the cool things without the baggage. We want to own a BMW, A Lexus, a brand new Ford F350, pop out 8 kids while we eat Applebees every night. My point is humans live outside their means. They end up straining our society by contributing little to nothing. If we didn't make it mandatory for them to contribute the $5,400 a year they wouldn't. Make our nation stronger & smarter by contributing to education. If your child chooses not to obtain a higher level of learning then you now have $96,000 eliminating any other debt you may have obtained. 6. ) Families should pay different amounts based on household income. I realize that making a individual pay $5,400 on a $24,000 is unreasonable. The lack of money could lead to more crime in our society. In this scenario the family should only be charged $1,500 so on & so forth. If you fall under $18,000 a year you should be exempt from fees. Conclusion; Again I would like to thank the Pro for taking this debate. I am interested in the response. For Pro to win this debate I would like him/her come up with logical and rational reasons why my argument is unreasonable. Resources; A. ) . http://www.mybudget360.com... B. ) . http://www.visualeconomics.com... C. ) . http://www.brillig.com... |
9 | 38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00004-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms should be required I accept my opponent's definition of "school uniform. " However, my opponent has to realize that the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms if it chooses not to require them if he hasn't realized such a thing. I also ask that any videos not be looked at until I ask you dear reader. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I shall now jump into my opponent's points and begin to refute: 1. ) As a high schooler, I know full well that I would hate certain aspects of my school with or without school uniforms. In fact, being forced to wear school uniforms will make me dislike my school more. My opponent talks about helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism. There is rarely team "tests or team essays which are the majority of grades in most classes. Comparing sport teams to school is like apple and oranges. In fact, many students would feel like the school is more of a dictatorship then anything with uniforms. Again, school uniforms suppresses individualism and discourages teachers to recognise students for their different personalities, character, and abilities. School Uniforms also stop students from taking responsibility for the aspect of dressing themselves for a public environment. Uniforms fit for Military schools where unity, and discipline are key along with following orders. Not public school where creativity, and being yourself are key elements. Private schools do not matter in this debate as I've shown above. 2. ) It surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another. Furthermore, it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group. Other students will simply bring a outfit from home to change into the minute class ends. I would know as many of my friends (both boys and girls) attend private catholic schools where uniforms are required. (Oh and they hate the uniforms). 3. ) School Uniforms alone do not teach boys to be neat and girls to be attractive. Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape? All school uniforms reenforce is wearing semi-formal outfits in school. 4. ) Again, untrue as I've already proven above. My opponent also fails to realize that if this was true then it would only make other students get bullied more often if not more for simply acting differently or having a different personality. 5. ) Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment. The Japan cosplay example my opponent gives is a rare one at best and this entire point really is invalid since students can express themselves in fashion outside of school without school uniforms. This link explores the difference between Japanese and U. S. schools: . http://sitemaker.umich.edu... Japanese students go to school for 240 days out of the year compared to 180 for American students and Japanese students go in for a half day of instruction on saturday. Japan also uses it's school funding better then America since getting to the students to the school is less of a issue in Japan. This link explores Taiwan schools: . http://en.wikipedia.org... From the Link: "It has been criticised for placing excessive pressure on students and eschewing creativity in favour of rote memorization. " There is a difference between teaching and turning students into robots who merely repeat what they been programmed to do. "Students often stay as late as 8 or 9 PM for "extra classes" which is explored more after the link jump. We have nothing near that for public schools in America. Kids in Taiwan also stay more days a year in school then U. S. students. This link explores Hong Kong schools: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hong Kong students spend roughly 195 days a year in school, and like the other two countries have a higher amount of work ethic and amount for their schools. To quote the link: "The current workload of a primary student in Hong Kong includes approximately 3 to 4 hours of schoolwork nightly. " Does everyone notice a pattern? How school uniforms are barely mentioned if at all in these links? How more school work, days in a school year, and format are the reasons why these schools have the best scores on international tests. If my opponent truly wants to improve schools, I'd advise making a separate debate about changing the format of public schools. Adding school uniforms will do nothing but create a negative impact as I've shown throughout this debate. So therefore, logic says that CON (me) should win this debate. Other reasons why school uniforms are a bad idea: 6. ) School uniforms would make students very identifiable outside of school and would make the divisions between schools wider. This would only lead to more bullying and fights to develop between students from rival schools as they travel to and from school. If my opponent does not believe such a thing could happen, I ask him and the reader to now look at the first, second, and third video in order in which rival schools fight at basketball and Lacrosse games where each side knows where the other stands obviously. In the first two videos, students and others from each school are fighting while in the third video it is the players from the schools who fight constantly throughout the game. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... 7. ) Uniforms cause major discomfort to the student and therefore distract the student for learning. The uniforms which are particularly bad for girls who have to wear skirts. They have to wear them all year around, this includes in the coldest of winter months. There is also the hottest months of the year that can affect the student having to wear uniforms. 8. ) This is related to #7 but a point all on it's own. This serves as a distraction for the teacher to make sure all teachers are enforcing said dress code and therefore takes time out of the class. This is bad both for the teacher who is now behind in teaching the class and the students who will be forced to learn something a little faster at the very least due to what should be a non-relevant issue like clothing except for the fact all students are now required to wear uniforms they don't like or want to wear. 9. ) No substantial evidence offered by my own opponent as to why School Uniforms would be superior to regular clothing outside naming three countries that have the highest test scores for reasons I have listed above. With that, I do believe I have refuted all my opponent's points. I will sum up as to why exactly I have won this debate in the third round. So I would just like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and of course you the reader for taking the time out of your day/evening to read it. I cannot wait to see my opponent's 2nd round argument so we may continue this debate. Thank You |
4 | c29734a-2019-04-18T15:46:37Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Soft drinks should be sold at school Schools do cares about their student's achievements and wellbeing, because if their students is healthy and achieves more, it can really made the schools be extremely proud. You are just saying schools should feeds its students sugary drinks and made them overweight. Then, the student's parents gonna blame the schools or perhaps put school to a judgement in the migration. Schools should banned soft drinks, because if they not care for their student's wellbeing, it is against the law. |
48 | d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The voting age should be lowered to 14 The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does. |
28 | f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized I will start this round by making my rebuttals then apparently conclude this entire debate afterwords. "Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. " - ProProstitutes have the same rights as any other woman in the United States because they are human beings. The only problem is that the laws are either biased or the prostitutes are afraid to speak up. A prostituted woman might be afraid of what her pimp will do to her and afraid for her life if she tries to leave; pimps often threaten the lives of the women who work for them, which may prevent a woman from leaving prostitution(1). Pimps assume psychological, biological, social, and economic control over the lives of the women they sell to johns (clients) through the use of chronic terror, cunning use of various aspects of captivity, and isolation from others who might offer support and validation. In addition they employ starvation, sleep deprivation, protein deprivation, conditioned physiologic hyperarousal, unexpected sexual violence, and learned helplessness(4). Also, most women in prostitution do not report rape or other crimes committed against them to the police because of the stigma associated with prostitution(2). In other words, whether or not prostitution is legalized, there will still be cruel judgement against them. Quote(2):"None of us went to the police. .. There was lack of trust. You didn't know which policemen to trust. Half the girls were being touched up by them. .. It would be like you chose to do this job: get out and do it, or get a life. .. The police have no compassion. They think the girls and women put themselves in that danger, so why should they be helped. " - Maria, a prostitution survivor. "Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. " - ProI understand the rate regulation, but lack of paying considered rape. .. ? Not only is this ridiculous, but I don't see this happening in a real court case. As I have stated before, rape is unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim(7). If a prostitute consents in the beginning, she can't just change her story and cry rape because a client fails to make payment. Let's say prostitution is legalized and you have a customer; he chooses the consenting prostitute he wants but he isn't satisfied by her type of experience so he refuses to pay, or he already paid for her services and demands a refund. Is the manager (pimp/boss) supposed to call the police and say this client "raped" one of his prostitutes with no valid evidence of the accusation? No pay is NOT rape. "If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. " - ProMy opponent has only quoted an outdated statement by some "professional" escort from 1995 as a source, instead of at least showing statistics of who would honestly "enjoy" the life of prostitution. "In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. " - ProA 25% decrease isn't very impressive considering that there's 630,000 women raped each year(3). "If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. " - ProHow do you know? Women can enter prostitution legally and still be financially, physically, or mentally and emotionally damaged. A study has found that PTSD resulting from exposure to physical danger is more common among prostitutes than among troops who have weathered combat duty(7). "Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. " - ProMost prostitutes are NOT similar to promiscuous people. Promiscuous people have sex with random people of their choice for their own entertainment for no amount of money. Prostitutes don't choose their clients, clients choose them, and often times, pimps choose their clients. And unlike promiscuous people, most prostitutes don't enjoy the sex they have with clients because, again, they don't choose them. If prostitutes don't obey their clients, they either don't get money to survive, feel the wrath of their pimps, or worse. At least promiscuous people can reject whoever they want because it's not their job. Responses to MissLenaElan's rebuttal's:"It promotes children to be trafficked""In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. " - ProProstitution IS human trafficking. There's no difference between them. Both are part of a system of gender-based domination that makes violence against women and girls profitable to a mind-boggling extreme, and both prey on women and girls made vulnerable by poverty, discrimination, and violence and leaves them traumatized, sick, and impoverished(4). Legalizing prostitution won't make a significant difference, it'll just be legal trafficking. As long as there are perverts/pedophiles in this world, there will always be child sex trafficking. I don't find one of my opponent's sources that she cited in her statement very useful to her offense because it has several flaws. My opponent stated, "If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive," but in her source, [. http://www.listland.com...], in the section where it mentions "legal prostitution would protect minors", it says, "A lot of pro-decriminalization of prostitution believethat if people can legally buy sex from women 18 years or older, it will significantly reduce child exploitation". This statement alone is based on beliefs and not estimated facts. According to a study of 218 "johns" (clients) who were warned that the women they were looking at online were actually minors, 42% still wanted the underage girl(5). Hypothetically speaking, how are prostitution businesses supposed to keep up with the demands of the other half of their customers if laws are regulated for only 18-year-old or older prostitutes? They would still have to resort to child trafficking in the US. "Most of the prostitutes are victims""Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. " - ProPeople don't have to be forced into prostitution to be involved in it. A vast majority of them are involved because they lack basic human services such as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. Also, for many women, prostitution and sexual exploitation might be the only life they know(1). If the US ever legalized prostitution, that would mean having a set age limit. Have you ever thought to yourself what would become of all the underaged prostitutes and future runaways in America trying to survive? Without the right help, they would most likely die on the streets or be forced into still illegal child prostitution. In other words, it would still not be a victimless crime. "Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job""There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a "safety button" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. " - ProNevada may have legalized prostitution, but 81% of the Nevada women still want to escape it, regardless of its legal status. One of them even stated, "It"s all the same emotionally, no matter where we work," referring to other " illegal " locations where she had been rented for sex(4). I do not understand what my opponent means by a "safety button" because she did not elaborate. And as for some of her sources, I find them invalid because some of them lead me to the main pages and not to anywhere that proves my opponent's point. Such as:. http://www.history.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.womenslaw.org...And a site with blank parts. .. . http://www.usdebtclock.org...Prostitution is wrong beyond all means and legalizing it will not make it any better for this country or for the victims involved in it. America needs to help these prostitutes get out of their lifestyle instead of making it worse. Vote ConSources:(1)-. http://www.womenslaw.org...(2)-http://www.thefword.org.uk...(3)-http://listen.nycagainstrape.org...(4)-http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...(5)-http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org...(6)-http://www.nytimes.com...(7)-google dictionary |
Subsets and Splits