query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
28
|
35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
In the United States, prostitution should be legal. In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.
|
33
|
e6851b7f-2019-04-18T15:42:13Z-00003-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
Are vegetarians really veterinarians because plants are alive. Vegitirians don't eat meat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get it in your head. plants have no meat.
|
1
|
f684b15b-2019-04-18T15:48:17Z-00001-000
|
Should teachers get tenure?
|
Home Schooling U.S. students aren't catching up to their peers in other industrialized countries. A report recently published by Harvard (your #1 school on your list) University's Program on Education Policy and Governance found that students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making gains in academics three times faster than American students, while those in Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia and Lithuania are improving at twice the rate. Researchers estimate that gains made by students in those 11 countries equate to about two years of learning. What gains U.S. students posted in recent years are "hardly remarkable by world standards," according to the report. Although the U.S. is not one of the nine countries that lost academic ground for the 14-year period between 1995 and 2009, more countries were improving at a rate significantly faster than that of the U.S. (Researchers looked at data for 49 countries). The study's findings echo years of rankings that show foreign students outpacing their American peers academically. Students in Shanghai who recently took international exams for the first time outscored every other school system in the world. In the same test, American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading. (And these are supposed to be the best students America has to offer). A 2009 study found that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science, behind nations like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland. Figures like these have groups like StudentsFirst, headed by former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee (aka the "Teacher Terminator"), concerned and calling for reforms to "our education system [that] can't compete with the rest of the world." Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006. That proportion is lower than those achieved by students in 30 other countries. American students' low performance and slow progress in math could also threaten the country's economic growth, experts have said from the Harvard study. (Your top school is admitting that American schools are failing). Here's one bit from the study: "Because rates of economic growth have a huge impact on the future well-being of the nation, there is a simple message: A country ignores the quality of its schools at its economic peril. Some would excuse the mediocre U.S. performance by claiming that it provides a more equal education to a much more diverse population than other countries do. It is claimed that test scores in the United States are lower than those in many other countries because they are not providing an education to all their students. That argument might have made some sense 50 or 75 years ago, but it is a seriously dated view of the world." Stateside, districts, states and the U.S. Department of Education are fighting to close large achievement gaps. The federal government has made hefty financial commitments to education in recent years, including the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the subsequent waivers from the standards-based law as well as the influx of about $89 billion in stimulus dollars to prevent teacher layoffs, keep class sizes down and avoid program cuts. Still, the Harvard study found little correlation between increased per-pupil spending and gains in test scores. A similar analysis by 24/7 Wall St. last July yielded similar results. In 2009, the U.S. spent more than $10,000 per student, ranging from $6,356 in Utah to $18,126 in New York. Utah's high school graduation rate, however, was higher than New York's. And Harvard's report isn't even taking the OECD reports into account. And those researchers have been tracking America's school progress since the 1990s. It's always the same: More spending, no achievement. Now that we know that the public school is getting more and more outta wack, let's target home and Charter schools. There are now over 2.04 million kids being homeschooled in America, a 75% increase from 1999. In the same report from Harvard that's listed above, the careers of the parents of homeschoolers were examined. 17.3% of the parents had a career in engineering and accounting, 16.9% held professions in law, medicine, and teaching, and 10.7% were business owners. The homeschooling eventually pairs off, as their test scores were compared to the test scores of the students in the school zone that the families were listed in. The results are mind blowing. Out of 100%, here's what the homeschool kids scored vs the public school kids on their state tests: In Reading: 89% vs 50% In Language:84% vs 72% In Math: 74% vs 42% In Science: 86% vs 77% In Social Studies: 66% vs 34% Needless to say, a homeschooled student is 2.34% more likely to get into college compared to their public school counterparts. There is one major downside to homeschooling: lack of peers. "When it comes to relationships and bonding, homeschooled kids suffer. But when the United States is ranked at what it is in terms of student performance, perhaps it's time to get better acquainted with the textbook, rather than the party." sums up one of the researchers. So we see public schools and home schools. They both have flaws, but what if you want the education quality of a homeschooler, and the peer on peer interaction of a public school. Well we are a free market society, and once again, the free market has the answer. New "Charter Schools" are popping up in America and bashing the stagnant methods of the public schools wide open. This has, however attracted the wrath of both the Teachers Union and the government monopoly of researchers, both of whom are keen to destroy anything that threatens them. Year after year, the government releases smearing reports and bad results, while the teachers unions protest the working conditions and lack of tenure. But is any of this true? Are kids in these new experimental schools really getting a sub-par education? The answer is no. In actuality, students are outperforming both public and homeschooled kids. And they are spending thousands of dollars less to do it. That's because charter schools are run by private profit driven owners, who have to compete for students. If a charter school fails it's students, then the parents can send their child to a different charter school. This ensures that bad schools close, and incompetent teachers are fired. This outrages the teachers unions, who are protected by tenure. Tenure is a fancy word for being "un-fireable". If a principal wants to fire a teacher, he has to jump through hoops to do so. The union contract is 600 pages of fine print long, after all. Take this example: A teacher in New York was caught sending sexually explicit photos to one of his 16 year old female students. It took the school board 5 years, over $614,000 in legal fees, plus they had to pay his $300,000 dollar salary just to fire him. The total cost to terminate him: $2,114,000 Why on earth does it cost that much? Because of his union contract. He thankfully will not be able to teach again, but in a unionized public school, teachers are near impossible to get rid of. This hurts not only our international standing, but also the students and families. This doesn't happen at a charter school though. At charters, teachers can be fired at the drop of a dime. It may seem unfair, but if the school wants to succeed, then bad employees have to go. That's not the only new thing about charter schools though. Parents are so eager to enroll their children that the school has to hold lotteries to determine which kids to admit. Some get lucky but sadly, most do not as they are forced to enroll their children into poorly performing schools assigned to them by their zip code. Once again innovation and the free market blossom, while monopolized industries fail to improve and leave America in the dust.
|
13
|
8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00001-000
|
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
|
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. 1) First we debated about the finite supply of fossil fuels. You argued that there were recent discoveries of new oil fields. One example being the Gulf of Mexico which contains from 4-6 bil. barrels of oil and natural gas. You continue to argue that due to such discoveries the estimation of world oil supplies need to be revised leading to the inability to make statistical hypothesis of when we expect the world to "run out of oil". I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory. Imagine a bell curved graph of year (x-axis) vs production (y-axis), to the right side of the peak there will be an exponential decline in production. It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds, but it is very important to at least attempt a statistical estimation of known oil reserves to compare with daily consumption. I can use this statistic with daily production specifically for one reserve vs its estimated oil supply to calculate how longevity of oil site, which could reflect on the company's decisions for on funding for the discovery of new oil sites. One of your sources mentioned that "since the early 1980s, discoveries have failed to keep up with the global rate of oil consumption, which last year [2008] reached 31 billion barrels of oil. Instead, companies have managed to expand production by finding new ways of getting more oil out of existing fields, or producing oil through unconventional sources" Recently we have made a large number of discoveries but we will at one point reach our production peak (Hubbert) in which we will no longer be able to produce as much as demanded. 2) The second reasoning stated that we are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the end. I used the example of the 1973 oil crisis. You noted that "we [currently] have the oil to necessary to meet our own demands" and that we just choose not to use it. With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process. The US does not refine enough crude oil to meet our daily needs and therefore we send it mainly to Canada to be refined and imported back to us. It is cheaper to send to Canada then to ship it 1500 miles to the next US refinery. As for the claim that we have enough oil reserves to meet our own demands, we do we not currently use them? Are we talking about emergency reserves and reserves found on land that we currently are not allowed to drill? If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil. As time goes by, the demand would increase and would witness the affects of a lower oil supply on the economy. 3) Within this third reasoning, I stated that the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The opponent states that alternative method does more damage to the environment. One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply. Solar panels contribute to the mining of coal. Your second example was hydrothermal dams. The source you received this information on was mainly talking about China and how they are irrationally, planned poorly and in need of more safeguards for affected people. Their goal for building so many dams is not to combat climate change or the fostering of development, but as a bargaining tool to have access to natural resources such as metals, fossil fuels, and farmland in exchange (Scudder). "Building of the dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2". The direct quote from your source is "Dam building creates other significant impacts as well. Drowned trees and vegetation burp methane — which traps heat at 25-times the rate of CO2 — out of the reservoirs, particularly in tropical regions like Brazil. In fact, scientists at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research calculate that the world's large dams are responsible for producing 104 million metric tons of methane a year — making dams the single largest source of human-caused methane." Failing to mention that the methane was due to drowned trees and vegetation. Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas. Also this describes "particularly in topical regions like Brazil". This debate specifically argues for the United States which is a different type of region. Before a hydroelectric dam can be constructed a study of the area is required to be studied and have federal and state licenses. These studies include site studies, hydrological studies and environmental impact assessment with required hydrological data of up to at least 50 years. Though there are some disadvantages there are also some advantages of hydroelectricity such as that it produces no waste, has a considerably lower output level of CO2 and eliminates the cost of fuel. The cost of operation is almost unaffected by the increase cost of fossil fuels, require no imports and usually have a low labor cost. Hydroelectric plants also have longer life spans than fuel-fired generation, currently have some built 100 years ago and still in service. 4) Last of all was cost. "The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels", this is a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not true of its parts. For example, bio diesel is a cheap alternative fuel and we have efficient technology to use it. Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases. Bio diesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline. Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free. This figure was calculated using today's chemical prices and a bio diesel experiment provided by NC State University. Conclusion my opponent states that I offer evidence that is forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources. United States was defined as "both moral and government policy grounds" with no further opposition. I argued for both grounds, meaning that there should be a behavioral change from the public and government policy change. Would it still be considered forcing if the public wants it? The presumption states "that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels". This does not mean that we should create sides and drastically change from the fossil fuel side to the alternative side. The key word "toward" could also mean a shift in a particular direction over time. If I was to find definitions they would be with a view to obtaining or having, In the area or vicinity of. Yes, we do have a form of time limit due to our finite supply of fossil fuels, but we do have the ability to use our time now to make efficient ways to use alternative fuels so that when we do need to change we can do so without disaster.
|
41
|
f5e8e370-2019-04-18T18:38:33Z-00003-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
A Corporation can be "too big to fail" Thanks for the response darkkermit. ==Rebuttal== My opponent cites a number of economic concepts but none of them prove that a corporation cannot become "too big to fail." R1) The Role of Profits All of my opponent's arguments here assume a) multiple firms in a competitive market and b) relatively elastic demand. Darkkermit himself says that a lack of profits means either a) too many competitor firms or b) a lack of demand (which is not possible if demand is inelastic). However, all of my arguments deal with industries that have a) very few firms and b) inelastic demand, meaning an inability of consumers to consume less or to switch to other products. So darkkermit's arguments don't apply. R2) Opportunity cost and scarcity Darkkermit argues here that a firm that is "unprofitable" is wasting resources. This is true. A firm that CONSISTENTLY (each business Quarter) fails to turn a profit IS wasting resources. However, firms go bankrupt for reasons OTHER than failing to consistently turn a profit. Often times, although a firm consistently turns a profit each quarter, the firm takes a huge, temporary loss that it cannot cover. After a bailout to cover the firm's losses, the firm is more than able to return to turning a consistent profit. If anything, letting the firm go bankrupt is wasteful because it is still a potentially profitable firm. I'll offer two examples: 1) if there was a temporary one-year drought, Monsanto might be in danger of going out of business, but could survive if the government covered its temporary losses; 2) Goldman Sachs lost too much money in the 2008 Financial Crisis, but was able to return the government's bailout money after only a few months and return to profitability. I'll agree with darkkermit that the government should not bail out firms in markets where each firm is small and there are a large number of competitor firms. I'll also agree that the government should not bail out firms in markets where demand is relatively elastic. I only argue that businesses in essential industries (food, power, and financial services) can become too big to fail. R3) Bankruptcy reallocates resources Economists are always stressing the difference between the LONG RUN and the SHORT RUN. Creative destruction occurs in the LONG RUN. Eventually, if a large monopoly goes bankrupt, smaller and more efficient firms will move in to take its place. However, in the short run, the bankruptcy of a large monopoly causes what we call a "supply shock," which is a huge disruption in supply that causes a massive spike in prices. The problem is, as I argue, that in essential industries with inelastic demand, the short run supply shock that occurs for the first 5-15 years causes too much damage before the long run benefits start materializing (after 15-40 years). If the economy cannot survive the short run shock, then the long run benefits don't matter. Also, when a company goes bankrupt, it means there is an inefficiency in the MARKET, not necessarily the firm, and we may not like the way the market reallocates resources. For example, in the food industry, the market may decide that there are too many mouths to feed, and we cannot do it without a monopoly, so the market's solution to this problem will be smaller farms and mass starvation. The market may decide to eliminate demand, rather than shifting supply elsewhere. My opponent discusses bankruptcies in the "carriage industry," "telegram industry," and "Blockbuster," but none of these is in an essential industry with inelastic demand. By definition, because there are plenty of alternatives in these cases, demand is ELASTIC, meaning consumers can easily switch to a related product. I would agree that we should let the firms darkkermit cites go bankrupt. R4) Response to darkkermit's rebuttal Darkkermit says I assume that when a company goes bankrupt, its resources do not magically shift to other companies. This seems to be a reasonable assumption, and darkkermit is clearly misunderstanding what his sources mean by "reallocating resources." If an oil company goes bankrupt, the market allows another oil company to seek out oil instead. But it's not like everything that the bankrupt firm had suddenly goes to other companies. If Monsanto went bankrupt, no other company could suddenly swoop in and produce millions of seeds, even if Monsanto's factories were all put up for sale; it takes A LONG TIME to rebuild Monsanto's expertise and rehire or retrain thousands of employees, and it takes too much capital to buy every single factory. In fact, because of patents, no one would EVER be able to reproduce Monsanto seeds. In the LONG RUN, Monsanto will be replaced, but in the SHORT RUN, no one will be able to QUICKLY reproduce its seed production capacity. So we run out of food in the short run. Or a better example of how resources are NOT conserved when a firm goes bankrupt is: a run on a bank. Commercial banks take deposits from people and then make loans using that money. So these banks do not have enough cash in their vaults to pay every depositor if they all come calling at the same time; the banks need the debtors to pay them back before they can return all the deposits. Typically, banks only keep enough cash on-hand to cover 10% of their liabilities (money owed to other people). A "run on the bank" occurs when a crisis - such as the financial crisis prior to the Great Depression – causes people to panic and demand their money all at once. After the bank pays the first 10% of people, it runs out of money and declares bankruptcy. The remaining depositors all lose their money!! How are resources "reallocated" in this case, as darkkermit suggests? When a bank goes bankrupt, wealth is permanently destroyed; it is NOT conserved. ==My case== Let's begin with the dropped arguments. 1) Burden of proof Remember, the following banks received bailouts: Fannie and Freddie, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, American Express, Comerica, Capital One, Lincoln Financial. Darkkermit fails to explain how the simultaneous failure of all these banks would not have hurt the economy. 2) Monsanto and PG&E Darkkermit doesn't respond to these two examples of companies in essential industries. He fails to explain how the economy can weather a lack of food and power. His only potential response is creative destruction, but this only occurs in the long run. The economy can hardly survive without food and power for 5-10 years or more. So if a monopoly in the food or power industry went bankrupt, we'd be really screwed. Even if some smaller firms could start producing food or power, they would not produce anywhere near ENOUGH to replace the monopoly. The result will be a supply shock, which means a massive increase in prices. Only the rich would be able to afford food or power. Consider the following example: OPEC's oil embargo of 1973. OPEC is a cartel but it can be treated, for our purposes, as an oil monopoly (at least it was a true monopoly in 1973). When it severely restricted supply in 1973, this had a DRASTIC effect, but a LESSER effect than if OPEC had gone bankrupt and ceased to exist. If darkkermit is right, the contraction in OPEC supply SHOULD HAVE led to other firms taking over oil production. But it did not, at least in the short run. If OPEC had gone bankrupt, rather than restricting supply by 50%, it would have restricted supply by nearly 100%. There is no reason to believe, given our inability to replace 50% of our supply with other suppliers, that we would have been able to replace 100% of our supply. According to a study by NYU, the 1973 oil price shocks destroyed 1.2% of disposable income in the U.S., which is approximately $100 billion. [1] [2] The shock would have been much worse had OPEC not ended the embargo after only 6 months or had they cut off ALL supply. If we cannot replace an oil monopoly in the short run, there is no reason to believe we could replace a food monopoly or a power monopoly either. New argument: 3) How banks became too big to fail The following is borrowed heavily from Charles Morris' "The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown." With the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies started combining into enormous mega-banks. This was a big problem. Commercial banks and insurance companies had suddenly taken on the risks of the investment banks, by combining with them. Investment banks had always made risky investments, like investing in mortgage-backed securities, but before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, an investment bank that made bad investments would merely go bankrupt. If it insured its losses with an insurance company, its investors would still get their money back. However, by combining with insurance companies, investment banks ensured that if they bankrupt their parent company, the insurance arm of said company would have no money left to cover financial losses. Secondly, by combining with commercial banks, investment banks ensured that they were wagering OUR savings accounts into extremely risky ventures, like mortgage-backed securities. So if the mega-bank went bankrupt, we would lose our savings accounts as well. This FORCED the federal government to bail out the banks because they would have had to pay either way; it was either a bailout OR FDIC (federal deposit insurance, up to $100,000) would have to cover the loss of every savings account in the country. When the banks were separate, the failure of risky investments would only bankrupt the small investment banks. Combined, however, risky investments spread the risk throughout the ENTIRE financial system. Add to that the concept of leverage, and the situation is even more troublesome. Using leverage, investment banks allow investors (and themselves) to use $1 to make an investment of more than $1. Consider an anology: if a casino let you do this, here is the way it would work. You would go to the Roulette table with ONLY $1 in your pocket. The casino would let you place a bet of $30 on black (a leverage ratio of 30-to-1) using only your one dollar bill. If you won, the casino would give you $31 (your $30 in winnings plus your original $1), but would keep the $29 of their money you used to make the bet. If you LOST, you'd owe the casino $29 dollars. That's how leverage works. Prior to the financial crisis, Bear Stearns was leveraged at a ratio of 33-to-1. At this ratio, a 3% loss wipes out the entire company. These kind of risky bets are fine when the investment bank is just betting its own money, but it is NOT fine when it is also betting people's insurance policies and their savings accounts. Credit default swaps were a way for banks to INSURE their risky investments (mortgage-backed securities). A mortgage-backed security is essentially a bundle of individual mortgages that an investor can buy. Investment banks, at this time, demanded high rates of return and by definition, more risk leads to greater returns, so banks would cut out the safer mortgages, and started only bundling the risky mortgages (subprime mortgages) together. They KNEW these investments were risky, so insurance companies started issuing a credit default swap, which means that if you lost money on the mortgage-bundles (securities), the insurance company would pay back the losses. The reason that when Lehman Brother's failed, this touched off the financial crisis, was because Lehman Brother's had been issuing credit default swaps to investment banks. When banks realized that their financial losses from the mortgage crisis were no longer insured, chaos ensued. So here's the chain of events: (1) The mortgage market goes sour. (2) Mortgage-backed securities take huge losses. (3) Investment banks are leveraged at high ratios of around 30:1. (4) This means that a 3-4% loss in the market for mortgage-backed securities will bankrupt the PARENT company. (5) Parent companies went bankrupt, meaning they ran out of money. (6) Parent companies, because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, also included commercial banks and insurance companies. (7) Since the insurance companies were now bankrupt too, they couldn't cover the financial losses they were supposed to cover. (8) Since the commercial banks went bankrupt too, our savings and checking accounts were gone too. (9) The government had no choice but to bail out the banks. If Glass-Steagall hadn't been repealed: (1) Investment banks lose money. (2) Insurance companies, being separate, still have capital to cover the losses. (3) Our savings accounts are safe in a completely separate bank. And that's the story of how the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act caused banks to become too big to fail. Vote Pro. [1] http://people.stern.nyu.edu... [2] http://www.euromonitor.com...
|
39
|
51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00005-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.
|
20
|
46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000
|
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
|
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
|
9
|
debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00005-000
|
Should students have to wear school uniforms?
|
Uniforms at School! My Arguments:-Uniforms ensure equality among students. If children wear uniforms then they cannot be judged by what they wear. [1]-Uniforms make students less self-conscious of their appearance. Students would not have to have to stand in front of the mirror for half an hour every morning to decide if their outfit is good enough or what outfit to wear. This argument can be applied to many students, especially girls.-It shows signs of respect and politeness. You show respect to your school and teachers when you wear uniforms.-Uniforms save money. When you only have to wear two outfits a week that aren't your school uniform, you can have a more limited selection of clothing. You do not have to buy as much clothing, and therefore, you save money. In low income areas, uniforms would be a good idea because parents wouldn't have to worry about buying all sorts of new clothing for their children and children wouldn't feel pressured to have new cloth items to fit in because everyone would have the same clothing as they did.-Uniforms enforce discipline. Students are made to wear uniforms instead of whatever they want.-Teachers don't have to worry about dress code. Things to worry about in dress code:hats/hoodsreally short shorts/skirtsetc...If there are uniforms then everybody will be dressed appropriately. This would give teachers one less thing to worry about.-It helps prepare students for their future jobs. Students learn how to dress appropriately for work. If they dress in t-shirts and jeans while they go to school then they might think that this would be OK to do when they go into jobs as adults. If this is what they learn at school, then this is what students would do as adults. I understand that there is always a good chance that parents might teach students how to dress appropriately but this doesn't always happen. [2]-School uniforms could lower the cases of bullying within schools. In many cases kids are insulted and picked on because of the clothes they wear and how they look. If all students wear the same thing it would be very hard almost impossible to make fun of someone who is wearing the same thing as you.-Making all children wear school uniforms would make them put more focus on school work. Kids wouldn't be constantly looking at what others are wearing and thinking about what they should be wearing. In addition to this, students often waste a lot of time shopping. If students had to wear uniforms then they wouldn't need/want to shop as much since there would never be a chance to wear the as much cloths.-Uniforms save water. This might seem like an odd argument at first site. However if you think about it, this argument would start to make more sense. Students would only have 2 uniforms per weak and wouldn't have as much chance to wash them. Today, many students wear one pair of jeans, one t-shirt, and one sweater per day and wash seven pairs of all three items every day. Students wouldn't have 5 uniforms (one for each school day) and as a result, a lot of water would be saved.-What studies show. Some studies show that school uniforms might help attendance and graduation rates.Studies show that having students wear uniforms would help them get through school. "...reported that mean graduation rates rose nearly 11 percent at schools that required uniforms, compared to pre-uniform years. Non-uniform school mean graduation rates dropped 4.6 percent, compared with the earlier years." [link below]http://www.19actionnews.com...The negative sides of uniforms:I agree that there are several negative sides to wearing uniforms. I will state some of them now and I will also state my arguments that oppose these points.-Students wouldn't get the freedom to choose what they want to wear. My response:People's lives must have some limits. Children and teens may want to wear whatever they like and would be very unhappy if they were forced to wear uniforms. However I showed that students would benefit from being forced to wear uniforms and that benefit is more important than freedom.-Students wouldn't be able to express themselves properly.My response:This is true. People are often judged by how they dress. If a student is dressed neatly and has clean clothes every day then teachers may think differently of that student than they would think of somebody who constantly has sagging jeans and dirty clothes. I haven't really responded to any of my opponents arguments since my opponent has not yet had the chance to state any. I simply stated my opinion and position on what I think my opponent's arguments will be in the next round.Conclusion:I have provided many arguments that support the idea of having uniforms at school. Although uniforms may be unpopular with many people, they are not a bad idea. Studies support my thinking. The future of students should be put in front of what individual stunts want to wear. Students would be more successful if they did not get the option of deciding what to wear every to school. After all, students can always wear whatever they want on the weekends. Weekends are for students to do what they want. I await arguments and/or responses from my opponent.Sources:http://www.angelfire.com...http://www.ehow.com...
|
12
|
68a6059b-2019-04-18T16:16:44Z-00001-000
|
Should birth control pills be available over the counter?
|
La Iglesia Catolica No Es La Verdad "yo intento a limitarme a refutar la idea de esta iglesia ser o no la legitima representante de la religion cristiana, sin adentrar en la question de la veracidad del cristianismo." Gracias! Eso es lo que intentaba hacer. Mateo 5:17 Este punto niega a lo que acabas de decir :\ Es por eso que lo deberíamos rechazar. Afirmar que ni hay una veracidad del cristianismo me parece ser un juegito de palabras. Dejame saber si tú no estás de acuerdo. "los registros biblicos no suportan la tese de que la Iglesia fue fundada por Jesus" En realidad, sí lo hay. Jesus dijo a Pedro: (algo así) "Eres Pedro, y en esta piedra yo voy a hacer mi iglesia." La intención de Jesús se hace más clara cuando uno se dé cuenta que las palabras "Pedro" y "piedra" son las mismas en el idioma en que la historia fue escrita. "no hay ninguna evidencia historica que confirma la existencia de uma estrutura ecesiastica centralisada el Papa antes de la adopcion del cristianismo como religion oficial de Imperio Romano." Si hablas de una estructura física, no sé por qué tenía que existir un edificio para demonstrar que la iglesia es la verdadera iglesia de Jesucristo? Pero si no hablas de un edificio, el versículo que ya te he dado te lo demuestra que San Pedro fue el centro de su iglesia. "No le parece una gran coincidencia que el lider de la Iglesia en el Imperio Romano era el obispo de Roma?" No... en absoluto. Es porque la mayoría de los cristianos estaban allí, por supuesto. La iglesia ni podía sugirse en otro lado. No tiene nada que ver con el Imperio Romano. "Porque hay un solo Dios y un solo mediador entre Dios y los hombres, Jesucristo hombre" Entonces ¿quieres que yo crea que uno no puede pedirse oraciónes al otro? Porque todos los cristanianos hacen esto. De todos modos, ni importa. Porque los santos ni son mediadores entre Dios y los hombres, sino mediadores entre Jesucristo y los hombres. Tú ves? :) "la figura de Maria, que en el catolicismo tiene un papel muy cerca del papel de las diosas de la fertilidad en varias religiones." No importa. Quizá siera hecho para que Maria sería más familiar a los paganos, y así la religión sería mas fácil aceptar para ellos. "Tambien es importante notar que varios elementos que existen en el cristianismo actualmete fueron adoptados mucho despues del siglo I." Esto tampoco importa si fueron adoptados por la misma iglesia de Jesucristo. No es como si rechazieran a nada que Jesucristo enseñaba. "Por ejemplo, la naturaleza divina de Jesus fue afirmada solo en el concilio de Nicea, en el ano 325 (9), mientras que los sacerdotes solo fueron obligados a mantener el celibato en 1563 (10)." Y estos niegan a algo que Jesucristo alguna vez enseñó? Si no, ¿por qué nos importa? "Todas estas evidencias ponen en duda las afirmaciones de la Iglesia Catolica como la única verdadera y legítima representante de la fe cristiana." ¿Ponen en duda? Quizá, si no fuera por el hecho de que yo los acabo de demostrar a ser irrelevante o falso. Pero lo que tienes que hacer no es simple poner en duda, sino comprobar :) Gracias pro debatir conmigo, y espero que el major gane!
|
41
|
a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00000-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
All third world debt should be dropped Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay
|
23
|
9386df4a-2019-04-18T17:21:32Z-00004-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
Euthanasia I believe that euthanasia should be made legal. And although there may be flaws if we are to legalise it, I believe that a lot of good will come from it. Take my grandma for instance: she lived a long thirty years Before she became ill, after this the illnesses kept pilling on and on till the point that she spent twenty years unable to move, in the same house and in constant agonising pain. Twenty years of torture, sure she may spend a brief amount of time with her love. But still she begged and the doctors could not supply. Many other people experience this and euthanasia will allow them, at their own will to decide whether they die and release themselves from their undying pain!
|
27
|
ea8c0f6d-2019-04-18T11:49:18Z-00006-000
|
Should more gun control laws be enacted?
|
Gun Control By my opponent's own admission in the comments, they are advocating for no gun control/regulation whatsoever. This is lunacy. No background checks, for example, would mean a known criminal could walk into a store and buy a gun. No limitations on types of arms available to civilians means someone could buy a heavy machine gun or grenade launcher. No requirements to go through an open or concealed carry safety class means people could just carry guns around without having to demonstrate competence with them. This would be no different than letting people drive cars without passing a driving test. The list could go on, but I'll stop here for now and see how Con responds.
|
8
|
684fcb10-2019-04-18T11:45:47Z-00009-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion. Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion. I often hear moderate arguments about abortion to include something along the lines of "Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest." While the condition of rape has at least some logical and clear reasoning as to why it should be considered in the legality of abortion, nothing I have read beyond the dangers of inbreeding seems to support that being conceived in incest should be handled any differently that one not conceived in incest.
|
26
|
9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00001-000
|
Do standardized tests improve education?
|
Resolved on balance I apologized for not making my style of debating clear from the beginning. I first present evidence to support the agrument I'm making, then I later make analytical arguments at the end. I see how this may have been confusing. BUT this doesn't mean my argument is false, that would be a "fallacy fallacy" (). And saying you don't need to present any further arguments just shows how week your argument is the first place. Now my plan for Round three is to present two pieces of evidence (I only put in the parts I thought nessary in order to save time reading) and then move on to analytical arguments to directly address your arguments. Argument 1. Why we don"t need standardized testing 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." Arguement 2. Standardized Testing Undermines Teaching http://www.npr.org... No Child Left Behind has turned into a timetable for the destruction of American public education," she tellsFresh Air's Terry Gross. "I had never imagined that the test would someday be turned into a blunt instrument to close schools " or to say whether teachers are good teachers or not " because I always knew children's test scores are far more complicated than the way they're being received today." No Child Left Behind required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests. Student progress on those tests was measured to see if the schools met their Adequate Yearly Progress goals. or AYP. Schools missing those goals for several years in a row could be restructured, replaced or shut down. "The whole purpose of federal law and state law should be to help schools improve, not to come in and close them down and say, 'We're going to start with a clean slate,' because there's no guarantee that the clean slate's going to be better than the old slate," says Ravitch. "Most of the schools that will be closed are in poor or minority communities where large numbers of children are very poor and large numbers of children don't speak English. Schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like "second-class citizens.It's simply a way of avoiding the public responsibility to provide good education." Analytical arguments: 1. C1. by taking tests the students don't see how much they know just how much they can memorize right before taking a test; the information doesn't stick they can cram information the night before and then forget it all in a week. The purpose of education is to learn information and then use it later in the world and tests undermine that. -also standardized test don't tell the student anything they don't already know. Most students are already well aware if whether they know something or not; even if they didn't they have grades which provide more information than any test as it consists of more studies. 2. C2. we can make the term standardized tests broad enough so it covers all forms of tests. But most of the issues lie in the tests which do occur once a year as they hold the biggest impact on the students future. 3. C3. Just because a student does well on a test doesn't mean he or she know the information. Most student's don't consistently study, rather they cram all the information the night before, students who do study are much more likely to experience a block than students who cram info. (http://www.galamind.com...) -also there are, as we know today, three types of learners, tactile, audio and visual. and test only favor visual. Conclusion: Due to the lack of the pros arguments I uphold my belief to that standardized testing is NOT beneficial to k-12 education in the United States, and I urge the affirmation of the resolution.
|
3
|
ff9d7dd1-2019-04-18T17:27:12Z-00002-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
should cloning be allowed If we add it to the tree of life, then it will be part of the tree of life. Thus, your argument fails, and the BoP has not been met.
|
8
|
6702c4fe-2019-04-18T13:27:55Z-00003-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion should be legal I wish you strength in argument =) Affirmative Case The following arguments are the reasons that abortion should be legal in the United States. Argument 1: Unwanted children negatively impact society Section I: Sexual and psychological abuse of children Firstly, I believe it to be axiomatic (i. e. obvious) that there are not enough people to adopt unwanted children, hence the existence of foster care and the frightful statistics that follow. Of the children sent to foster care, a study by Orlow (2009) found that, "As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse" [1]. Given that in 2011, the amount of children in foster care was roughly 400,000, approximately 300,000 children will experience sexual abuse [2]. Worse still is there is a global trend towards "newborn abandonment," which means that if unwanted children are not aborted, these instances of sexual abuse committed against children will happen at an increased rate [3]. Clearly, permitting abortion would prevent sexual abuse of children. As for psychological abuse, it is well documented that children suffer from a range of things, even if the adoption is considered "successful". For example, Adopted Child Syndrome, which is a Dissociative Disorder (basically, a condition wherein the adopted feels "rejected" no matter what), is such a powerful psychological disorder that it has been used in successful legal defences [7]. Legalising abortion would prevent these soul-destroying psychological disorders from burdening these people and society at large. Section II: Better crime outcomes Steven Levitt, studying the homicide rate since Roe vs. Wade (wherein it was declared that the interest of the fetus should not come before the interest of the mother), found that there was a 40% decline in homicide rates which was tied to a decline in unwanted children [4]. To corroborate this conclusion, another study found that, "One of the strongest predictors of criminal activity, and the externalities that result, is family background. " From this, it was found that children who are adopted are more likely to commit crimes *of all types* than kids who are not adopted [5]. If abortion were legal, there would be better crime outcomes for the community. Section III: Non-adopted children For children who are not adopted, when they exceed the age restriction of foster care, they will have to find work, enter college, enlist in the military etc. *all on their own*. They do not have the luxuriant wallets/purses of their parents to burrow. There are many, many instances of where these children end up "not falling off a cliff, but definitely clinging to the edge" [6]. Clearly, by not being aborted, these unwanted children are left on their own eventually, struggling to fend for themselves. Argument 2: Rape pregnancies devastate mother and child Section I: Psychological impacts on the mother In the United States, the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 32,101 for females aged 12-45 [8]. Of this 32,101, a study found that rape pregnancies were closely linked to family and domestic violence, so much so that 50% of rape pregnancy women abandon or leave their child for adoption (for further impacts on the latter, see the previous argument) [9]. Other psychological difficulties routinely found in these women include: ambivalence towards the child (which harms the mother in the sense that she feels distant from the child, and this obviously harms the child, too), trouble telling the child about the rape pregnancy (once the child gets older), and distress and pathological denial of pregnancy (cognitive dissonance) [3]. Rape pregnancy women normally have to share custody with their rapist. In the constant interaction with the rapist, the mother has to pretend that she likes her attacker, of which has a tethering effect. This tethering effect dissolves her resolve, which leads to experiencing and re-experiencing feelings of rape continually. This causes serious psychological harm: depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation [8]. A clear majority of rape victims suffer from a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTDS), and a further third of rape victims develop a particularly vicious form of PTDS: rape-related PTDS (RR-PTSD). Suffering from PTSD and sometimes RR-PTSD negatively effects the ability of the mother to parent properly, as she fears any sort of contact with the rape event in order to avoid flash-back of the rape [8]. Finally, rape trauma (which is basically reliving the rape within her mind) can be reactivated by giving birth to a child conceived through a rape, regardless of the mode of birth. This has been found to occur often for women who have rape pregnancies [10]. Aborting rape pregnancies would avoid these devastating outcomes for these 32,101 women. Section II: Harms to children There is often found a stigma attached to children produced through rape, one which is found throughout the world. Some communities in Rwanda call them "devil's children. " Communities in Timor-Leste engage in calling these children "children of shame". In Nicaragua, "monster babies" is the term used. "Dust of life" is what they are called in Vietnam [11]. This perception is compounded by the previously cited "ambivalence" of the mother towards the child, easily instils a feeling of neglect within many of these children [3]. For women who birth rape children, there is a greater risk of: preterm delivery, low birth weight and infection [12]. Finally, consider the mother and parenting climate in which these children are raised. Mothers are very often deeply psychologically scarred (for example, with PTSD or suicidal ideation), which contributes to poor parenting decisions, such as the decision to outright abandon the child (which is part of the 50% statistic wherein mothers either give the child up for adoption or abandon the child). Argument 3: Aborting to save a mother's life There are documented cases wherein the life of the pregnant is at risk, and the only way to save her is to abort the child. To quote the gynaecologists of this article, "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. " Quoted within the article, a study published in Guttmacher's International Family Planning Perspectives, found that a "risk to a woman's health" was the primary reason for 2.8% of United States abortions [13]. An example of this "risk to a woman's health" can be found in an article at the Salon. With the fetus going to die anyway, the mother almost lost her life because of failure to abort the already doomed fetus. There was only risk of the mother dying due to the refusal of doctors to perform the abortion. This is so obviously a case wherein abortion would allow the best case scenario (and it it) [14]. Argument 4: Outlawing abortions leads to many dangerous abortions Abortions do not cease when they become illegal. An article in the New York Times writes, "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. " To elaborate, the researchers saw that abortion performed in a safe way in countries which it were legal, but dangerously in countries where it was outlawed. On a global scale, these illegal abortions account for 13% of women's deaths during childbirth and pregnancy [15]. References [1] . http://www.hg.org... [2] . http://www.acf.hhs.gov... [3] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://www.mit.edu... [6] . http://www.npr.org... [7] . http://www.amfor.net... [8] . http://georgetownlawjournal.org... [9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [10] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [11] . http://www.thelancet.com... [12] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [13] . http://www.usatoday.com... [14] . http://www.salon.com... [15] . http://www.nytimes.com...
|
21
|
9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000
|
Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?
|
Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.
|
10
|
fd54e53a-2019-04-18T15:45:23Z-00002-000
|
Should any vaccines be required for children?
|
Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective I will briefly respond to Con's arguments, then comprehensively demonstrate my case. My opponent touched on some uncited, antiquated Japanese figures which are almost half a century old. Given that there has been no substantiation of this claim, there is no way for us to take this as true. Further, their argument is actually committing two distinct logical fallacies; the first is confusing correlation with causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), and the second is post hoc ergo propter hoc. My opponent contends that vaccination is irreversible. In many cases this is not only desirable, but the claim is actually false. My opponent then makes a claim about bacteria becoming immune to vaccines. This is patently absurd and uninformed. There is no mechanism by which bacteria can grow immune to vaccines because vaccines are made up of pathogens, not cures for those pathogens. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics through the process of natural selection and evolution, but not to vaccines; there is no mechanism by which this can possibly occur. Con then took the position that vaccines are full of harmful chemicals. Of course, this statement always comes up, and I will address it clearly in my opening. The anti-vaccination movement is dangerous and people who take positions such of yours are jumping on the bandwagon of pseudo-science perpetuated by self-interested groups who are neither qualified to make the claims they do, nor have they read any peer-reviewed science on the subject. I aim to demonstrate the case that vaccinations are, on balance, both safe and effective. I will open with three key arguments:1. Vaccination is demonstrably effective. I will illustrate this point by discussing the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and various other trends in disease reduction upon implementation of public immunisation programs.2. Vaccination is safe. In order to avoid being accused of constructing a straw-man of the anti-vax position, I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population.3. Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits to both individuals and the wider community_______________________ Vaccination is demonstrably effective. Study(1) after publication(2) has demonstrated that vaccines are effective in their basic function; stimulating an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a given pathogen. In simple terms, this means that vaccines reduce the incidence of disease. And, of course, historical data demonstrates this(3)(4). As can be seen in the graphs(3,4), the implementation of vaccination corresponds to a rapid decrease in death and incidence of various diseases, and is supported by evidence of statistical significance (i. e. not simply a case of correlation not equalling causation). Meta-analyses of some types of influenza vaccines have shown reduced effectiveness during some seasons, however, this is almost ubiquitously a result of the rapidly mutating nature of the influenza virus, and not the efficacy of the vaccines themselves. Individuals may still become ill after being vaccinated, as individual vaccination effectiveness is, of course, only approaching 100% (about 98% for measles, for example)(1). However, the absolute majority of individuals achieve functional immunity once immunised against the most diseases, and it is this vast majority that, when coupled with high community vaccination rates, confers the additional benefits of herd immunity and the eventual eradication of disease. The eradication of poliomyelitis in the Western world and smallpox globally is one of the greatest public health achievements to date. This came about through a disciplined vaccination schedule and years of research and dedication; the almost-total destruction of these diseases is testament to the efficacy of vaccination(5). Vaccination is demonstrably effective in reducing the incidence and death rates associated with disease. Vaccination is safe. As a rule-of-thumb, no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects. However, the propensity of the evidence towards their safety is absolutely clear and except in a very limited number of exceptional cases, are almost always safe. I will demonstrate this assertion here, first discussing the ingredients in vaccines and then using the example of the autism controversy surrounding vaccination, specifically the MMR vaccine. IngredientsSome children (and adults) have medical conditions which cause them to be immunocompromised, or may have a specific allergy to an ingredient in a vaccine. These individuals should not be vaccinated; however, these individuals provide even more reason for others in the community to become vaccinated; immunocompromised children rely on the heard immunity of their immediate and extended community to prevent them from becoming ill. Controversial ingredients include:- Thimerosal, what most anti-vaxxers claim as the origin of autism, is an organic mercury-based compound that consists of just under 50% ethyl mercury(6). Thimerosal is not in the MMR vaccine(9). It has been omitted from almost all vaccines since 1999(6), there is no evidence of it causing any adverse health effects with the exception of minor swelling and redness at the site of injection(6), and it has never been implicated in causing autism. It was used as a preservative, but the amount was so thoroughly insignificant that one's of mercury bioaccumulation from the entire childhood vaccination schedule is nine-times less than a single tuna sandwich(7). And anyway, if it did cause autism, you'd expect autism to drop after it was taken out of vaccines. Which it didn't. - Formaldehyde, also used as a preservative and to prevent runaway pathogen replication. 70-80 times more can be found in the human body by natural production than in a jab(8). - Aluminium Hydroxide is in such small quantities in vaccines that you can literally get 1000 times more of it from a single ant-acid tablet and is the most common metal in nature(7)[around 9:00]. Breastfeeding puts a child at greater risk(8). MMR and AutismThe MMR vaccine does not cause autism. In fact, none do(7)(10)(11)(12)(13). Time and time again, studies and meta-analyses have found no correlation between vaccination and autism. In 1998 Andrew Wakefield conducted an illegal test (it wasn't even an experiment) on 8 children (which is a pitifully small sample), doctoring the evidence of those measurements, and presenting them to be published in the Lancet(12). The paper was later retracted and Wakefield lost his licence to practice medicine. Before looking for more evidence, frightened readers and the 24-hour news cycle regurgitated the hokum and established the current fear of vaccines. What the public didn't know was that Wakefield had been hired to find evidence of the correlation for a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company responsible for the production of the vaccine; and Wakefield was developing his own vaccine which he wanted to force into the market as a competitor(12). Follow the money. Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits. Decreasing vaccination rates have been implicated in the recent resurgence of measles(14). In fact, failure to vaccinate has caused hundreds of thousands of preventable cases; this interactive map is absolutely critical in examining the extent of diminished benefit due to failure to vaccinate(15). This topic will be explored more thoroughly in the following rounds, but the key factor here is that deaths which would otherwise have been prevented occurred. Diseases which should be relegated to the nightmares of history such as polio and measles are resurging. And all of this based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. This amounts to biological warfare, and those responsible for the anti-vaxxination movement, primarily the charlitain and corrupt Andrew Wakefield, should be held accountable for their heinous crimes against humanity. The depths of moral turpitude and depravity of the anti-vaccination movement have demonstrated themselves limitless. It is up to us to fight superstition and pseduo-science with evidence and reason. Best of luck to my opponent. Vaccination is, given the propensity of the evidence, both safe and effective. __________(1) New England Journal of Medicine, Markowitz, L. (et. al), Immunisation of Six-Month-Old Infants[. .. ]accessible at: [. http://www.nejm.org...](2) Journal of Infectious Diseases, Weindberg, G & Szilagyi, P, Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap, accessible at: [. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...](3) [. https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com...](4) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](5) Polio timeline: [. http://www.historyofvaccines.org...](6) Thimersol: [. http://www.ncirs.edu.au...](7) Go to time (10:30): [](8) [. http://www.chop.edu...](9) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](10) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](11) [. http://www.immunize.org...](12) [. http://theincidentaleconomist.com...](13) [. http://www.health.gov.au...](14) [. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...](15) [. http://www.cfr.org...]
|
41
|
574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00001-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!
|
50
|
aad1c75f-2019-04-18T19:33:31Z-00008-000
|
Should everyone get a universal basic income?
|
Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators Good luck to my opponent. I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I thank all of you for taking the time to read this. I negate; biphasic defibrillators should NOT replace monophasic defibrillators. ==== Resolutional Analysis: For the statement "Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators" to be true, replacing monophasic defibrillators must be the best thing to do. For example [remember, this is a hypothetical, I am not claiming this example case to be true], let's say defibrillators were not useful at all - that both monophasic and biphasic were solely harmful to use, but biphasic were less harmful. The statement "Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators" would not be true, since it would make much more sense to simply stop using them at all. Replacing the monophasic with biphasic would be unnecessary, since there would be a better alternative - not using them at all. Further, I accept my opponents definitions. ==== Note that I will often shorten 'xphasic defibrillators' into 'xphasics,' where x is either mono, bi, or tri. This is for ease of reading as well as ease of typing. ==== Nonresolutional advocacy With the right phase durations, triphasic defibrillators are currently optimal for both effective defibrillation and lessening the risk of damage. For largely the same reasons biphasics are superior to monophasics, triphasics are superior to biphasics. Thus, by the very logic my opponent applies in round 1, monophasics should be replaced with triphasics, as should biphasics. Replacing monophasics with biphasics would simply add another unnecessary step to the process, since the biphasics should also be replaced with triphasics. Source: http://www.circ.ahajournals.org... [Journal article from the American Heart Association.] So rather than replacing monophasics with biphasics, I am advocating replacing both monophasics and biphasics with triphasics. Thus, the resolution is negated. ==== Other support One more piece of relevant information, also from the source listed above: "Most defibrillators that can deliver a biphasic waveform already contain the switches and other hardware necessary for delivery of a triphasic waveform. Therefore, slight alteration of the software in the defibrillator to switch the waveform a second time to deliver the third phase is the main change required for delivery of a triphasic shock." Thus, it is extremely easy to convert most biphasics into triphasics. While my opponent is suggesting replacing monophasics with biphasics despite the hardware changes necessary, a good part of my advocacy [biphasics->triphasics] does not rely on such costly hardware changes.
|
11
|
e65906b2-2019-04-18T16:51:26Z-00006-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Same sex marriage should be accepted I believe same sex marriage should be accepted, as a person cannot change their true feelings, be it for the same/ different gender. Unfortunately, many people do not accept this, and instead shun the idea of same sex marriage, ignoring the couple's feelings for each other.
|
29
|
27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00001-000
|
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?
|
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...
|
30
|
e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00007-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
On Campus Concealed Carry This is a redo of a debate which wasn't finished due to schedule conflicts. I apologize for having waited too long to reissue the debate but I haven't had access to my laptop. As agreed we will be copying and pasting our previous arguments until we come to the new round.
|
22
|
f0905e24-2019-04-18T14:37:06Z-00005-000
|
Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
|
the solution is comprehending the problem Vispex: how many times has life independently arisen throughout the universe?I assume that you comprehend the problem, but I'm equally certain that you don't know the solution!If you don't like that one, I've a puzzle for you... just ask and I'll post it here... I'm quite sure that you'll be able to understand the problem but not be able to find the solution... there is a palpable difference between comprehending a problem and having a solution.I'll concede this point, at least: often in life when we are looking to change our own behaviour it is true that comprehending the problem IS THE FIRST STEP towards a solution (but it still is not actually the solution).
|
19
|
d01dadc7-2019-04-18T18:42:02Z-00002-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Gay marriage Hello, and thank you. I would like to wish a gracious good luck to my opponent, and myself, and hope that this debate will yield some good fruit.I would like to begin by saying that my personal oppinion with the resolution put forth is in acceptance, so I personally agree with my assertion that GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, but I will be arguing otherwise. I wish to offend no one, and hope for this too be a good debate.I completely agree with my opponent's def. put forth, but don't necesarily understand what she is trying to propose. In saying that gay marriage couples should have the same rights as staright couples, you are argung that they already don't, which isn't necessarily true because gay marriage is not necessarily legal in all places, therfore, your resolution shouldgo as follows...'Resolved: Gay Marriage should be Legal In The United States.' That would be a more inflicting and tumultuous topic to debate opon, thereof its implications would follow, but in my understanding of your topic, I am obliged, as Con to simply argue that Gay Marriage couples should simply have the same rights as staright marriage couples, even though this proves to be false and comical. Anyhow.Now onto my contentions as too why Gay Marriage couples SHOULD NOT have the same rights as straight couples. My arguments will extend through various reasons, bur primarily why giving them the same rights wouldn necessarily result in the best impacts (let alone, ultimately letting them marry---as your resolution poorly states). _________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention One: Not Economically Beneficial Gay couples have complicated financial lives, and preparing tax returns is no exception. Since the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples who are living in states that do recognize their various legal unions must still file separate federal returns. That requires more record-keeping and planning than their heterosexual counterparts — and oftentimes, gay couples will have to pay more to an accountant to prepare their returns. But the consequences aren't all negative. By remaining unmarried, some same-sex couples will avoid the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple's combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than if they had remained single. Or, they may qualify for more tax deductions or credits that phase out as their income rises. On the other hand, plenty of same-sex couples end up paying higher tax bills than their heterosexual married counterparts, including those with a stay-at-home parent. That's because the tax code tends to favor married couples with disparate incomes or a nonworking spouse. [1] All in all, SSM (Same Sex Marriage) is most definately not economically beneficial and a certain contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it creates bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people. [2] Contention Two: Violence In Homosexual Lifestyles Is More Likely Not to mention, another factor that is notable in regards to homosexuality and health is the significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. In addition, according to experts homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal. Many inclduing Johnathan Goodwin and Marian Sury, notice these rates, and realize how they could substantially INCREASE if SSM was allowed or in this case...LEGALIZED! Authors and info. obtained by American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS [3] A Branch of to this argument would be the unhealthy impacts of promoting a homosexual lifestyle. The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Obtained by Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS [4] Contention Three: SSM is Sexist Homosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference.All in all, as stated, by allowing for this, you are allowing for a sense of sexism. By allowing for a sense of sexism, you are allowing for the wrong thing instead of right, which Pro is trying to dictate. [5] Contention Four: SSM Will Create A Slippery-Slope If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.This is not just an assumption, but fact. Many are supporters of this idea, even few gay marriage advocates realize the impacts that allowing SSM could have not only on people, but our society as whole if allowed. [6]All in all, although this is not 100% certain, you are in a way ALLOWING for it too happen, and that is not good. Yes, you are allowing for people to have 'free rights' to marriage and so forth, but really what extent? And if you were to propose that SSM be legal and so forth, then what other alternative or route would you take to prevent this from happening?Nothing, there is nothing to do, so you should do NOTHING about the situation. . Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party, is a well-known opponent of SSM. While debating SSM in parliament, he noted that marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The government refuses marriage licenses to certain persons, discriminating on the basis of age, mental disability, consanguinity, religion and sex. He asked: "...why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone." Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. He continued: If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. He said: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense." He referred to two instances where illegal sexual practices had become legal: court decisions have legalized SSM, and have declared laws against anal intercourse to be unconstitutional. His implication is that polygamy is next. [7] Sources: [1]-http://www.theatlantic.com... [2]-http://drudgereport.com... [3]- American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS [4]- Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS [5]- http://www.mplsvpn.info... [6]- Jennifer Roback explains in a speech at Wheaton College (obatined from National Organizaion of Marriage---http://www.nomblog.com......) [7]- Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party
|
35
|
d52c7da7-2019-04-18T14:31:40Z-00003-000
|
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
|
God doesn't exist I will post my argument in this round, and rebut Pro's argument in the next. Key: I will be using multiple logic symbols in this debate which will be useful for me to demonstrate modal expressions. This acts as a key for all the logic symbols I use. <> 'possibly; is logically possible that' [] 'necessarily; is not logically possible that not that' p-->q 'if p, then q' ~ 'not' G the proposition 'God exists' C1) Modal ontological argument I shall be using the modal ontological argument, an ontological argument predicated on the nature of modality, for God's existence. The definition of God here is one with all properties mentioned, along with the property of necessary existence, i.e. where G → []G. 1) If p can be perceived, then p is logically possible 2) God can be perceived P1: It is logically possible that God exists 3) If God exists, God is a necessary being 4) If God does not have necessary existence, then God necessarily does not exist 5) God's non-existence, if true, is solely contingent P2: If God is true in one possible world, then God is necessarily true in all possible worlds 6) The actual world is a possible world 7) If God has necessary existence, then God exists C: Therefore, God exists The argument phrased in modus ponens form: a) If God exists in one possible world, God exists in all possible worlds b) God exists in one possible world C: Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds a) God is Necessary The premise: "If God exists in one possible world, then God exists." We must first understand what a 'possible world' is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, "[T]hings, as a whole, needn't have been just as they are. Rather, things might have been different in countless ways, both trivial and profound. In any case, no matter how things had gone they would still have been part of a single, maximally inclusive, all-encompassing situation, a single world. … Intuitively, then, the actual world … is just one among many possible worlds." [1] From this, we can conclude that there are multiple situations that described how the world could have been, and each situation depicts one among infinite possible worlds. There are also situations that the world can't have 'been' as such, since they would entail contradictions. But if <>p, then we can conclude that p exists in at least one possible world [2]. Now, if p existed in all possible worlds, then []p, meaning ~<>~p. Now, take the proposition G, i.e. the proposition 'God exists'. With the law of the excluded middle, one can reasonably assert that either []G or ~[]G [3]. Becker's postulate also concludes that ~[]G → []~G [4]. Since God is defined as "necessary being", if God does not have necessary existence, he necessarily does not exist. If something is "necessary", then it is true in all possible worlds. But since God's existence remains possible, it is true in some possible world, which means God doesn't necessarily not exist, which, from Becker's postulate and modus tollens, allows us to conclude that if God exists in at least one possible world, God is necessary. b) Possibility of God Premise two is defended from Sankara's dictum [5], which states that if p can be perceived, then <>p. If p is considered 'possible', then it does not entail a logical contradiction, i.e. is logically possible. When p does entail a logical contradiction, when the contradiction is realized, p cannot be perceived, due to Russell and Whitehead 1910's proposition that known as the Law of Non-Contradiction [6], which entails that if []q and p is an unproved proposition that contradicts q, then ~p. The link here is that God can be perceived, and entails no contradiction. Therefore, God is logically possible. The conclusion entails from the premises from modus ponens. C2) Argument from idealism I shall be defending the position that there is a consciousness that grounds reality--therefore, there is a being that grounds reality and rules it, thus acting as its creator. Since reality defines 'power', and the being exercises control over reality, that being is 'all powerful'. Therefore, it fits the definition of God. If reality is mental, then a mind controls it by definition, thus I shall affirm that reality itself is a mental product. a) The mind is not physical, and is mental b) If X is mental, it cannot interact with something which is not mental C1: Minds cannot interact with anything non-mental c) The mind interacts with reality C2: Therefore, reality is mental, and requires a mind to ground it a) Minds are Mental First, it is known that the 'mind' is something that exists. As Descartes put it, "Cogito ergo sum" [7], or "I think; therefore, I exist." To doubt the existence of the mind itself requires a mind. With this, I shall affirm that a mind is not physical. If a mind is physical, then metaphysical solipsism is logically impossible, i.e. exists in no possible world, thus is necessarily untrue. Metaphysical solipsism is the position that the mind is all that exists [8]. If the mind is made of matter or energy, then it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from it, which it would under solipsism. Is solipsism metaphysically possible? A proposition p is metaphysically possible iff it entails no logical contradiction. From Sankara's dictum, something is metaphysically possible if: (1) it is not prima facie impossible, and (2) it is conceivable and can be perceived [9]. Consider this diagram I borrowed from Zmikecuber: Therefore, minds are neither matter nor energy, meaning they are 'mental', and physicalism or materialism is false. b) Interaction With the Physical If q is mental, then q cannot interact with y if y is 'physical'. Interaction between q and y assumes that dualism is true, therefore I shall refute dualism to affirm this premise. Under substance dualism, the mental and the physical are different, and the mind does not interact with reality. But consider the ability to make a choice--this refutes substance dualism. Now, move on to property dualism, which holds that while mind and reality are separate, they can interact with each other, because the mind is a property of a physical. The problem is, this runs into non-cognitivism. If the mind is a property of the physical, it only acts as a relational attribute, therefore cannot exist independently--the mind as property of the physical means the mind is to the physical as '40lbs' is to a rabbit that weighs that much. But solipsism is possible, so the mind is not a relational attribute. c) Interaction With Reality The mind does interact with reality. When I make a choice to touch something that is actually real, the mind tells me to touch it, thus the mind interacts with reality. Additionally, I can feel pain due to physical effects. The conclusion entails. There is a mind that grounds reality--an all-powerful spirit that is the creator and ruler of the universe. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://web.stanford.edu... 4. http://legacy.earlham.edu... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Principia Mathematica, 116-117. Cambridge: 1910. 7. https://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 9. http://alexanderpruss.com...
|
7
|
bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000
|
Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?
|
Felon Voting Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, "In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting." "In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing." Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, "We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the "average Joe." By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, "Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right." Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as "The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1)." It states that, "No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.
|
26
|
f367e2c5-2019-04-18T19:17:39Z-00004-000
|
Do standardized tests improve education?
|
students of public high schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate Con begins by sighting the value of education. I agree, and throughout this debate I will demonstrate how valuing education has nothing to do with making standardized tests mandatory. Moreover, I will prove how the implementation of mandatory standardized tests to graduate actually hinders and often discourges education. REBUTTAL: 1) Extrinsic Motivation. a) Con writes that extrinsic motivation should be the standard because it stimulates an individual to perform certain tasks despite a lack of interest. The counter to that is simple: If students aren't interested in the material, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. b) Con also notes that people are rewarded in the long-run once they achieve the goal of passing the exams. However, as I will point out throughout the debate, there are several flaws with the exams itself that may prevent even competent individuals from passing the tests. The frustration of failure may discourage students from learning in general. 2) Test necessity. a) Con asks, "Should we really disregard a system that tests the basic skills needed to perform well in a professional occupation? " Yes. If a certain occupation requires specific skills, I don't see anything wrong with those employers issuing an exam to test candidates in order to ensure that they are capable of properly functioning in the workforce to accomplish certain tasks. This is done all the via the CPA exam, the bar exam, etc. I'd argue that they are necessary because they prove that people are capable of performing the duties of the jobs that they were hired to do. However, Con fails to demonstrate why these exit exams should be necessary for proving anything upon exiting from high school. Students should be able to graduate simply for demonstrating that they understand the material that they are expected to. There are other ways to demonstrate this knowledge aside from general standardized tests. b) Con says that these exams are "Very accommodating to graduating students in that they will be able to assess the areas they need to improve upon to be ready for the real world. " You'll notice that Con has failed to explain how everything required to know on an exit exam from HS is applicable in the "real world. " 3) Problems with the test. a) Con writes, "Yes, measured gains are noisy and unstable. Yes, socioeconomic and demographic factors have some influence on measured student progress. And indeed, scaling is a problem. No standardized test is perfect, yet we use them all the time. .. " Okay, how is a test which results are unfair, unstable and unreliable a GOOD or useful thing? b) Just because we "use them all the time" isn't an argument in favor of the tests. That's an appeal to tradition fallacy. 4) Jobs. The idea that exams should be allowed because people shouldn't be picky about what job they get in today's economy is irrelevant (and kind of absurd). 5) Diplomas and College. Con writes, "Without exit exams, colleges may not look to a diploma as a means to judge what a student has learned. " If exit exams are mandatory, why is a diploma necessary? I say that if a student receives a diploma, that should be enough. .. Or, the college can issue individual entrance exams that students need to pass in order to gain admission to the college. On a final note, colleges usually determine admission based on SATs or ACTs. Now I'm not sure about everywhere in the country, but at my school, SATs weren't mandatory. Regardless, if a college requires them, it should be the student's decision/responsibility to take them. ARGUMENTS: 1) Test performance. a) Not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. Some people panic, get sick, choke, etc. These tests are very intimidating to students who sometimes obsess over the results. Therefore one's performance on the rest is really not a very accurate indicator of how each individual performs. b) A lot of students suffer from things like dyslexia or other learning disabilities which inhibit them from performing up to par on the exam. As such, these individuals may never have a fair chance at passing the exam. On the other hand, if they're given an advantage (such as longer time to complete the test), this might not be fair to the other students who are not given more time despite their own personal (sometimes undiagnosed) need. Either way, there's hardly a way to make these exams universally fair for everyone, which goes against your very own value and criterion. 2) Learning Inhibition. a) Preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. b) Because people are intelligent in different ways, this test is discriminatory because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 3) Alternatives. a) If one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. These can be discussed amongst administrators, school boards and teachers in each individual district and vary upon school, class or possibly even individual so long as they show sufficient skill in designated areas. 4) Usefulness/Uselessness a) Some people need to graduate HS to accomplish goals such as entering the military or other specific fields of training. I posit that some of the knowledge required on the exams will have nothing to do with some individual's direction in life, but because they need to graduate HS in order to tend to their other options, the negation of this resolution stands in their way of success. This again seems to go against Con's value. b) Studies show that those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society [1]. c) While standardized tests may be useful in finding out what one knows and does not know (in terms of what they should or are expected to know), this should have nothing to do with whether or not they GRADUATE. Instead, they can be tools or guides used to determine which areas a pupil may need more help or focus in. The graduation aspect is also supported by the reality that different schools in different towns and states require different things to pass. Not all standardized tests are the same, and as such a student from a different school may also have an unfair advantage. This again does not seem to uphold Con's value. 5) Costs a) Creating the tests, preparing for the tests, giving the tests and grading the tests all cost money. Because Con has not proven that these tests are necessary OR beneficial (or even reliable or relevant), then this cost is unnecessary and therefore an unfair tax burden. Source: [1] . http://hsee.umn.edu...
|
39
|
95f5b83d-2019-04-18T11:11:33Z-00004-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
Minimum wage in a (completely) capitalist system I don't believe minimum wage should be implemented in a pure capitalist system because it goes against the point of capitalism. First, Let's define capitalism. The dictionary definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, Rather than by the state. " Minimum wage contradicts this as it regulates how much a private owner can pay its employees. In a capitalist system, Why should the government decide how much you can pay those YOU employee? It seems so over controlling and unnecessary for them to be involved in such a thing. I could see fair payment becoming a concern, However, But naturally different jobs would warrant different pay and the value of money would naturally shift to account for any changes in average pay. I would like to clarify I'm not saying this is relevant to any specific country like the United States, As the US isn't completely capitalist and has some government intervention. This is merely an argument about capitalism itself.
|
28
|
a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00001-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
Prostitution Should Be Legal My apologies to Con, but as I was away from my computer for a week due to stuff IRL, I will fully concede this debate to them. I apologize to a greater extent to the site and its members for my misconduct. I will endeavour to only join and create debates that I intend to finish in the future. If I do find myself in a position where I will not be able to post arguments in a timely manner, I will postpone the creation of that debate to a more appropriate time. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused.
|
37
|
9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00000-000
|
Is cell phone radiation safe?
|
Should we be worried about cell phone raiation Okay, I'm a little confused because your grammar is bad. I believe I understand, and what ask you to cite your sources.
|
46
|
e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00022-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.
|
19
|
c69ebdd9-2019-04-18T13:14:29Z-00002-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment Pro claims that I "cannot come up with a clause" that shows the Supreme Court's decision was valid. On the contrary, I've outlined the Supremacy Clause (which Pro dropped). I've explained how SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to rule in favor of gay marriage. I've explained the Due Process Clause (which Pro did not successfully negate) and Supreme Court precedent in multiple cases. Right there I've already used two clauses of the Constitution to justify my case, so Pro is lying. Moreover I've explained how legal precedent and the Supreme Court works insofar as interpreting the Constitution and how they have done so justly. Pro keeps repeating arguments that I have already negated which is a waste of time and character space. For example, he writes "The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any 'right to marriage' as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia. I've already explained that the United States Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals - not just in Loving v. Virginia but in other cases which I cited with sources; see the first line of Round 2 for reference. This must be extended even if Pro ignores it. Furthermore, I've explained pretty explicitly how the Court came to its decision in that case. Once again, the court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ergo, Pro is lying when he says the Court had "no power" to grant the people the right to marriage. They had that power 14 times and in the Loving case in particular, invoked 2 parts of the Constitution to validate their ruling. The Supremacy Clause gives them the power to use federal law to trump state law. Pro continues to say that since the original definition of marriage included a man and a woman, that definition should remain the same. However this is a fallacious appeal to tradition which I've explained in the last round. Pro did not respond to the flaw in his faulty logic. Once again, just because something was written one way by law doesn't mean the law is justified or should remain the same. Please extend my examples of interfaith and interracial marriages once being illegal, but the law was rewritten to accommodate a better standard of morality. Gay tax payers deserve the right to choose their marriage partners if their partners are other consenting adults. Pro has not explained why gay relationships or marriages are immoral outside of fallacious appeals to tradition and authority. Human sacrifice used to be legal. Only white males used to be able to legally own property. Surely the laws of the past should not always be upheld. Gay people in loving relationships deserve to have equal protection and receive the same benefits, rights and privileges as their married peers. They are citizens whose relationships will not harm themselves or others. Marriage is an institution that benefits both the individual and society as well as strengthens families. Families come in all different shapes and sizes, however, all deserve legal rights and protections. Children born to gay parents might not have the same protection as their peers with heterosexual parents. This is dangerous and unfair. Couples in loving relationships who seek to make their partnerships legally official should be afforded that opportunity regardless of their sexuality. By Pro's logic, a man and a woman who are not in love (and may be gay) or barely know each other can get married, whereas two people of the same sex who are in loving relationships should not be able to marry each other. That is illogical. Sexuality or sex should not be the basis or criteria for marriage. Gay marriage has little to no effect on the heterosexual community. It is therefore none of their business to dictate how other relationships and families are recognized. Gay people and relationships will exist (and seek legal protections) whether homophobes appreciate them or not. These couples should have hospital visitation rights and receive the same tax considerations; there is no reason to view them as separate from heterosexual married couples under the eyes of the law. Just because it makes some people uncomfortable is entirely irrelevant. The separation of church and state means religious people have no rhyme or reason to impose their archaic moral standards on others. Promoting gay marriage means gay people will be more accepted. This will decrease depression and suicide amongst gays, and make people have an easier time coming out and being in healthy relationships they don't have to keep hidden or be ashamed of. Same-sex couples look to have families by having biological or adopted children of their own, and families deserve legal protection under the Constitution -- which is exactly what SCOTUS has ruled many times over, and rightfully so.
|
32
|
a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00002-000
|
Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?
|
Lowering the voting age Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.
|
33
|
5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00003-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.
|
18
|
fe6a066-2019-04-18T19:41:24Z-00005-000
|
Should churches remain tax-exempt?
|
If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches! I myself am pro gay-marriage. The way I see it, homosexuals have a right to live a homosexual lifestyle if they choose, whether I agree with it or not. Now I am not here to argue whether or not gay marriage should be legal. If my opponent does, I will refrain from posting any further arguments and I would ask the voters to vote PRO. What I am arguing is that if we legalize gay marriage, we must pass legislation protecting the rights of churches to refuse to perform such a marriage. I myself am a religous person. When I read an article about a homosexual couple who sued a church that refused to perform their marriage I was disgusted!!! The church was forced to perform the marraige on the grounds that to refuse based on sexual orientation was discrimination. Now I thought that this was a ridiculous ruling because there was a whole other aspect of this case that was ignored. There was a very clear and blatant violation of the church's freedom of religion! The church was forced to perform a marriage that was against their faith. That is a very clear violation of their religious rights. Now this disturbed me. It was one church, but if we legalize gay marriage, it will be lots of churches. It could very well be my religious leaders that will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of a court ruling. There are many churches that will perform gay marriages and those that wont should not be governmentally forced to violate their beliefs. Many would see this as being forced to sin against god! Anyway, my point is this... If we legalize gay marriage, a church's or a religious leaders rights to refuse to perform the marriage must be entact! We must pass legislation to protect it!
|
22
|
3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00000-000
|
Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
|
Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.
|
3
|
bb8a50bf-2019-04-18T18:52:30Z-00003-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
free trade should be valued above protectionism "It is very important for you to know that free trade leads to better roads, better health and better lives" -- Rosario Castellon. I think that Rosario Castellon is exactly right free trade does lead to a better road. Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. And yes it should before I begin this debate I would like to offer the following definitions. Free Trade: trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods Protectionism: Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade. All as defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary My value for this debate is societal welfare or the total well being of an entire society. My value criterion for this debate is free trade and I will prove that free trade upholds the well being of our society with three points first Free trade enhances competition, second competition is good for the economy, and third having a good economy promotes societal welfare. Free Trade Enhances Competition Free Trade brings competition to a global scale it brings companies that might not have competed with each other together to create products that are beneficial to us the consumers. Ok let's think for a minute, we have only one company in the United States that has a known gaming system and that's Microsoft with the Xbox, now with out free trade this would be the only gaming system creating a monopoly, they could raise prices to larger amounts for lower quality products but because we have free trade we have competition between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo each creates a well known product by having this by having free trade we enhance competition, so that there aren't monopolies. We create this competition with Free Trade which in turn is better for the consumer and the economy. Free trade is beneficial to the Economy. The one thing that just about every American has on their mind is the economy. Some things that come to my mind when I think of the economy are unemployment and the prices of products that I need. Free Trade enhances competition, and Free trade is beneficial to the economy first it decreases unemployment and second it is beneficial to consumers. Free trade decreases unemployment. According to Professor Andrew Bernard of Dartmouth College , "about 40% of American workers work for firms that export. These exporting firms are vital for American jobs, especially at a time of slowing job creation. � The falling dollar makes American goods more desirable abroad, creating more jobs for Americans. � And foreign firms have headquarters here, employing 5.3 million American workers." May 2009. According to Organization for international investment this year currently foreign companies have 5.6 million people employed. This is jobs that are being created and with out free trade we wouldn't have more and more foreign companies are employing Americans to work for them and for good pensions and wages. Free Trade is beneficial for the consumers. In contention one I gave an example of how free trade is beneficial, it helps make prices lower and gives us the consumer's better products. According to the bureau of labor statistics a free trade economy pays 4.9% less than a protectionist economy. Doesn't that say it all right there that free trade lowers prices so there for it's beneficial to society. But not only does it bring lower prices but better products as well. Its common sense that if you have varieties of the same product that a consumer is going to choose the product that is the cheapest but best product so with a free trade economy companies can not afford to make bad products where if there wasn't those varieties and there wasn't that competition then companies wouldn't be as innovative. And that wouldn't be beneficial to the economy free trade is in the best interest of the economy and what's in the best interest of the economy should be in the best interest of society. Free trade upholds societal welfare. Societal welfare is the well being of society as a whole. It is common knowledge that the economy affects the welfare of society. When unemployment goes up people stop buying products and more people apply for social programs, like food stamps, and unemployment. So since I have proven that free trade is beneficial to the economy then isn't beneficial to society, doesn't it uphold societal welfare. Even according to the American Heritage Foundation free trade promotes a higher standard of living. Meaning that it does promote society as a whole and if it promotes societal welfare than it should be valued and you must vote for the affirmative. In my case I have proven that free trade enhances competition which prevents monopolies and creates better products that free trade is beneficial to the economy by lowering unemployment, and being beneficial to consumers, and that free trade upholds societal welfare by promoting a higher standard of living. Free trade does lead to a better road and I have proven this so vote for the affirmative Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.
|
8
|
684fcb2f-2019-04-18T11:45:33Z-00005-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion. Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion. I often hear moderate arguments about abortion to include something along the lines of "Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest." While the condition of rape has at least some logical and clear reasoning as to why it should be considered in the legality of abortion, nothing I have read beyond the dangers of inbreeding seems to support that being conceived in incest should be handled any differently that one not conceived in incest.
|
31
|
e07fb55a-2019-04-18T19:12:59Z-00000-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
Anarchy is a disease My opponent takes offense with the fact that I quoted The Dark Knight. He clearly has not seen The Dark Knight. My argument clearly negates the resolution. PRO has made no rebuttal to speak of.
|
24
|
2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00001-000
|
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?
|
Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.
|
5
|
a9a3f1c3-2019-04-18T11:57:38Z-00003-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
Should teens have social media I believe that teens should have social media because it helps them to connect with friends , family and peers. But teens should be limited on how much social media in one day because back when I was in school 4 years ago teens spent most of their lunch break on social media bullying others if their siblings ruined their photo or if their voice sounded funny through the voice recorder on the phone or Ipad.
|
5
|
2f5384a7-2019-04-18T18:11:33Z-00001-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
Improved Medicare for All (USA) -----Rebuttals----- Superior Insurance R1: Better Health Care Quality Neither the American College of Physicians or the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommend mammograms for all women 40-50 (as your source implies). They have not been empirically shown to cut overall mortality rates. Colon cancer screenings and PSA testing are not generally recommended in Canada, based on questionable benefits. We don't know if these may save lives, — or cause more harm than good. We don't really know if the lower use is good or bad. [2] Health care quality is better with Medicare for All — because medical professionals work their best for your health, and are not regulated by private insurance bureaucrats. R2: Rationing All health care systems ration, a fact. [3] Canada doesn't take money into the equation. There are a few waiting lists for elective care, but emergency cases receive immediate attention. Also, if Canadians spent more money on health care as we do, virtually all waiting lists would likely disappear. [4] Also, the time to wait is very close to wait specialists call reasonable in Canada. [5] The USA rations a different way. If you can't afford care, you are denied it. Thus, the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and the 45,000 deaths annually are both the results of rationing in America. We can end all of this death, and reduce the amount of deaths from 45,000 annually to 0. Health care is a moral issue. And we should make it more equitable, which SP does. American Rationing (current system): *The United Kingdom has Socialized Medicine, not Single payer healthcare. The former has gov't financing and medical delivery. Single Payer only has public financing. Thus, the U.K. is irrelevant to our debate. A Health Affairs survey reports that 27% of Canadians and 5% of Americans waited 4 months or more for elective surgery. However, the same study shows that 25%+ Americans didn't get medical care according to cost. That's 29%+. This is non-emergency treatment. So, American rationing is more severe as we can see. [6] Con has stated that Americans have better access to hip replacement. Ironically, nearly all hip replacement surgeries are provided by Medicare. So, Con has stated that Medicare provides good care. R3: Higher Satisfaction with Medicare Medicare recepients were more happy with Medicare vs those with employer sponsored coverage by 11 points. Medicare recepients also had higher quality care, better access to care, and an easier financial time with Medicare. All these points prove that Medicare has improved quality, improved affordability, and improved access. Thus we can derive that Medicare for All expands our freedom, is fair, improves our liberty, and is essential for our lives. Saves Money R1: Cut Health Inflation The G.A.U. shows that when Canada implemented its Single Payer system, health costs were about 8.9% in Canada, and in the USA 11.5% of GDP. [1] Today, Canada spends on its health costs about 10% of GDP, compared to the USA rate of 17%. Administration costs are lower, because we have not invested in ICT (electronic sharing) information system(s). From this we can deduct that Single Payer systems have reduced health care inflation, and thus lower costs over time. This correlates with my argument last round that Medicare has lower health care inflation. Canada has temporarily higher health care inflation because they are investing in ICT technology for future savings. [8] Taiwan with SP reduced their health care inflation to 2%. [9] R2: True Savings Con's sources basically say that because Medicare has no taxes, they have lower costs. It does not address the fundamental point though. --We have a massive plethora of thousands of health insurance companies. Each one has different rules, regulations, billing procedures, the costs of marketing, advertising, CEO profits, general profits, and huge bureaucracies to deny people care (rationing). This is massively inefficient. We have administrative costs of 7% because of this. --Other nations like Taiwan have a system in which one entity finances care. Simple billing procedures, simplified, and efficient. Administrative costs cut to 2%. Also, an apples-to-apples approach with Medicare and Medicare Advantage shows that Medicare has rates of administration of 2%. M. Adantage is 11%. [10] This proves my point, that private entities are less efficient in health insurance. Consensus: SP would cut many costs. From administrative costs and massive simplifying of financing health care, improving ICT technology, ranking procedures by efficacy, and removing insurance profits from the equation you save about $300 billion or more. And by a large insurance pool, risk is lowered and thus costs are lowered. This is the most important point in the savings provided by Medicare for All. It has been left unrefuted fully. Restores American Competitiveness Con fails to refute any of this argument. The cut in workers comp. by 50%, reducing labor costs by 10-12%, and cutting excess health bureaucracy. Taxes replace the prior premiums. All the savings I just mentioned are after taxes are included. Utlimately, SP would go far strides in making America's businesses competitive again in the global market, worker's wages would increase more with productivity, and the savings would be used for economic growth. All of these points have stood. Efficient Government Con refers us to Socialized Medicine, yet again. Single Payer would finance care based on the actual costs, plus a marginal profit. All of this would be provided a global budget. Global budgets would finance the costs of health care on a patient basis, and a guaranteed profit with it. This would encourage efficiency to increase profits and attract new patients. Look at Medicare now. It doesn't force providers to "extremely low levels" of costs. It just finances care. Conclusion Medicare for All would have huge benefits for America. - Equal Access to Care - Rationing Cut, ethical care restored - Universal comprehensive coverage - Free Choice of Provider - Global Budgets - Pro-business legislation: In addition to cuts in workers comp. by 50%, a 10-12% cut in labor costs, and other cutting other bureaucracy. - Pro-Labor Wages would correlate once again with productivity - more economic growth. - Simple rules - Doctor-Patient Relationship restored - $300 billion in savings, over $1,000 a person after taxes We care about people. This is the core of our Democracy. We should extend this empathy to protect and empower others, and expand their liberty, expand their life, and expand their freedom. We would save over 45,000 lives and end the death panels in the insurance companies that deny us care through rationing that kills . My opponent has also dropped the moral argument. Health is a life and death issue. Everyone's life is expanded with Medicare for All. Freedom is enhanced by Medicare for All. You are not free if you must sell your house or go bankrupt to survive an illness. If an insurance company denies you care, they deny you liberty. Fairness is restored by Medicare for All. Doctor-Patient care is restored, so you two do what is best for your health. ---Medicare for All protects and empowers freedom, liberty, life, and opportunity for all Americans. And be being very simple and economically efficient, and being morally central to America's value of empathy, it is an imperative that we must achieve. *CON will not rebut R4 here. He will use 7500 characters. No contender advantage. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://www.heritage.org... Vote Pro for affordable, secure, high quality health care.
|
28
|
a149e8-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00000-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
In the United States, burning the American flag should be legal. KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KfC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC!
|
40
|
f2cac0b5-2019-04-18T16:06:26Z-00006-000
|
Should the death penalty be allowed?
|
Death Penalty should be abolished in the US I will divide my arguments into 3 main points, the first of which I think is critically important. P1- Death Penalty doesn't deter crimeIf the death penalty should remain in the US, then the death penalty should deter crime. That is the point, a punishment is a deterrent, and to justify keeping a deterrent (especially an unethical deterrent like killing people), it should work. However, the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent in the US. A study from 1990-2009 took homicide rates and compared the states who had abolished the death penalty with those who hadn't. The states without the penalty have far better homicide records. They have had lower per capita homicide rates consistently, at times having up to 46% less homicides. They have seen a growing gap in homicide rates, with non penalty states having less on average. A comparison with non-penalty states and neighboring penalty states also shows that the non-penalty states have lower homicide rates; the best example is Iowa/Missouri, with 2.5 and 8 homicides per capita respectively (guess which one has the death penalty? ). An interesting example of a failure to deter crime is California, which saw an average increase in homicide of only 4.8% when there was no death penalty between 1968-91, while in 1952-67 saw an average increase in homicide of 10%. While the main cause of crime certainly wasn't the death penalty, the death penalty clearly wasn't doing anything to deter crime. Another obvious example is that as a whole country, the US has a 4.8 per capita homicide rate, whilst North, West, and Southern Europe (these are actual divisions, Eastern Europe has 2 states with death penalty so they aren't counted here) have homicide rates between 1 and 1.5 per capita, and all states in these regions have abolished the death penalty. And law enforcement officials do not believe that the death penalty is a good deterrent for criminals. When surveyed about detriments to law enforcement, only 2% believed that stifling the death penalty hurts law enforcement. A 1995 survey thought that only 1% thought that expanding the death penalty would reduce crime. It seems fairly clear that the death penalty doesn't discourage crime, and since that is the objective of any punishment, it seems that the death penalty does not work as intended. When coupled with the other issues, there is a strong case for abolishing the death penalty. . http://bit.ly...http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...http://nccadp.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... P2- The state makes mistakes in many areasIn addition to not deterring crime, the death penalty If the state is to carry out the execution of anyone, then the state should be held to high expectations. In a situation where the life of the defendant is very literally at stake, the margin for error is 0, and if it can't be 0 then there shouldn't be a death penalty. A 2008 study estimated that 4% of the total population of death row inmates (around 7000) would be exonerated if they received proper defense. They based their finding on the exoneration of 117 inmates over a period of 1974-2008, the resources applied to these appeals and the errors in convictions. The fact that 117 people were sentenced to death and later found to be innocent is scary enough, but the possibility of an additional 200 some innocent people being sentenced to death is scarier. And there are a number of death sentences that were carried through despite serious doubt about the guilt of the executed. For example, Gary Graham was convicted for killing a robbery and murder outside of a supermarket, with testimony from only 1 eyewitness who claimed to have seen his face for a few seconds from 30-40 feet away. 2 other witnesses, store employees, said they had seen the killer and it was not Graham, but the defense lawyer never called these men as witnesses. Jurors interviewed later said they would not have convicted him had they heard all of the evidence. Graham was executed in 2000. Leo Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Florida based on a confession he gave after hours of interrogation. Later, he claimed the confession was coerced. The officer who arrested him and the interrogator were later kicked off the force for ethical violations, and colleagues of the arresting officer said that he used torture. Witnesses also said that another man was the killer but Jones was executed in 1998. Until the criminal justice system can near guarantee that death sentences will not be erroneously given or that innocent people will not be executed without an opportunity to rectify possible errors, the state should not give out the death penalty. All of these problems, all possibility for error and the killing of innocent people, is prevented by simply abolishing the death penalty, which doesn't deter crimes anyway. Other issues come up in execution with the 8th amendment, which protects from "cruel and unusual punishment". Although executions are not necessarily cruel or unusual, there are often botched executions, especially with lethal injections (the main form of execution in the US), which make executions cruel. For example, a recent botched execution in OK of Clay Lockett, in which the victim (for lack of a better word) was knocked out by the first drug, ended up taking 40 minuets with Lockett mumbling, trying to get up, writing in pain and eventually dying of an unintended heart attack. That undeniably qualifies as cruel. If the state cannot administer capital punishment constitutionally there should be no capital punishment, period. . http://www.pnas.org...http://onforb.es...http://bit.ly...http://on.wsj.com...P3- It's expensiveMultiple studies done by various states have shown that the death penalty sentences are more expensive than life without parole sentences. California did a study in 2008 that showed their current system of capital punishment cost $137 million a year. To reform the system so that it would avoid the type of errors mention in P2, the cost would be $237.2 million. Restricting the crimes that would qualify for the death penalty would result in a system that cost only $130 million. However, the cost of a life with no parole system with no death penalty would only cost $11.5 million a year. That is roughly a tenth of the cost of their current system. That's a lot of dough for a system which has convicted innocent people and does not deter crime. A Maryland study, a state with 5 total executions, found that a case for the death penalty cost $3 million to taxpayers, $1.9 million more than non-death cases. A Nevada study found that death penalty murder cases cost $229,800 for a public defender and $287,250 for appointed counsel. That turns out to be $170,000 and $212,000 more per case compared to non-death penalty murder cases. Federal cases involving the penalty cost on average $620,000, 8 times more than non death penalty cases. Additionally, when defendants spend less than $320,000 on defense, they are guilty 44% of the time, whereas if they spend more they are only guilty 19% of the time. Underrepresented people are more likely to be found guilty because of cost rather than actual guilt. These are only a few of very numerous examples, which I can get into later but I am near the character limit. The point is that death penalty cases cost more to the states than non-death penalty cases, and we have already established that the death penalty do not have a deterring effect (P1) and there is error in the system when there should absolutely not be (P2). Is it really worth the extra cost? I think not. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.ccfaj.org...
|
44
|
9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00007-000
|
Should election day be a national holiday?
|
Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.
|
17
|
823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00003-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. For this round, I'll go ahead and rebut each of my opponent's claims.The Commerce Clause:Here my opponent basically explains that marijuana can be illegal, and that states have a right to prohibit the use of cannabis (and other drugs). It is important to remember that just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Throughout my constructive, I have shown that keeping marijuana illegal works against the common good and takes away from freedom of the people. Though my opponent's point may be correct, this is not what we are debating today. I aim to prove that prohibition of cannabis is wrong on both a pragmatic and moral level and whether or not marijuana can be illegal has no effect on that.The FDA:I think what my opponent is trying to say with this point is that marijuana is not going to be legalized under the status quo because marijuana will not ever be found as "safe and effective." The first thing to realize is that this point is clearly talking about medical marijuana. That is not what this debate is over. Never once in my constructive did I list marijuana as a "cure" to some diseases. Rather, I explained that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, therefore it can be seen as a less harmful alternative to currently legal (and more dangerous) drugs. Now, if the FDA has approved tobacco and alcohol for recreational use, why should they not approve marijuana? Even if the FDA would keep marijuana illegal, within this argument, my opponent assumes that the legitimacy of the status quo to attempt to keep cannabis away from the public. If this indeed is the status quo, it works against the common good (as I have shown in my case).Laetrile:For this point, my opponent talks about a drug known as "Laetrile," explaining that Laetrile was advertised as a potential cure for cancer, but ended up being completely ineffective. My opponent then goes on to explain that the Laetrile situation is similar to Marijuana situation. This simply is not true. NPR notes, "nnobody argues that marijuana is the new laetrile. For one thing, nobody's claiming it cures any fatal diseases. But it is a departure from the usual rules of evidence for drugs (1)." If marijuana indeed is the new Laetrile as my opponent claims, evidence must be provided that shows similar properties between the two drugs. Moreover, this debate is not over medical marijuana, rather it is over recreational marijuana; I'm not trying to argue that marijuana should be legalized for medical use in this given debate so so my opponent's point ultimately proves nothing.Tobacco:My opponent proceeds to explain how the FDA used to exclude tobacco from the law, and later on began to regulate it. This point has absolutely nothing to do with the given debate. One cannot compare two drugs with almost no similar properties. I'll get more into the tobacco point in my next rebuttal.Marijuana and Making it legal:My opponent's last two points are definitely the main argument he is making in this case. He explains that, "Bbefore marijuana can be legal for consumers it must be shown to be a "safe and effective" drug because marijuana use is often confounded by other drugs or studies." Looking at the sources supporting this contention, it is quite obvious that this argument pertains to medical marijuana; obviously recreational drugs are not meant to be "effective" in any way. Even if this argument did pertain to recreational marijuana, I have proven in my constructive that marijuana is not a harmful drug, especially in comparison to alcohol and tobacco. If the FDA approves both alcohol and tobacco, why not marijuana (as I noted above)? Even if my opponent is correct and it is within the status quo to keep marijuana illegal, my opponent has provided no evidence that suggest marijuana should be kept illegal.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments pertaining to the actual negative health impacts of marijuana are very weak. I have shown in my constructive that marijuana does not harm mental health, physical health, or the well being of non smokers, and in some cases actually positively impacts it. Marijuana positively impacts the economy, and the drug will ultimately become less dangerous when bought from a reliable source. The problem with my opponent's case is that he includes no facts that actually prove society would be better of by keeping cannabis illegal.On the other hand I have shown how car accidents go down by nine percent through the legalization of marijuana, how the tax revenue will benifit the people in any area that legalizes marijuana, how cannabis legalization positively impacts the economy, and how in the end over 750,000 unneccessary arrests can be prevented.Therefore, I am pro. On to con...(1) http://www.npr.org...
|
46
|
f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00006-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. I shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because "net neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. " Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I'm on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let's see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, "anyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in 'greater freedom of speech' is frankly either lying, or deluded. " Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn't support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments "[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. " Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it's citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast's blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that "arguing this [Comcast's actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. "(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast's actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro's position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the "prerogative" of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro's statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as "an online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book" should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro's argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still "leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. " (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that "similar regulations are place in Europe". However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that "broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US", when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro's arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...
|
11
|
5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00000-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Drugs Should Stay Illegal First of all, "Drugs are bad" is an opinion, not an argument. You cannot win an argument by stating your opinion. Second, that statement has nothing to do with the resolution, "Drugs should stay illegal". My opponent has trolled this entire debate and has not made a single argument. Also, my opponent misspelled "refuted".
|
8
|
54a472bf-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion is murder. Abortion, legally, is not murder. I have 5 minutes to type this so it will be brief.Murder is defined as a unlawfully killing someone [1], and abortion is legal in the US and most countries.It is easy to draw the conclusion that abortion is technically not murder.P1) Abortion is legal.P2) Anything that is legal is not murder.C1) Abortion is not murder.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
|
27
|
579ea609-2019-04-18T19:52:27Z-00005-000
|
Should more gun control laws be enacted?
|
Gun Control I've tried to have this debate before, but the opposition bailed. Anyway I will keep my first round short so my opponent can make their arguements first. Government programs are notorious for achieving results that are the exact opposite of what they intend. If advocates of gun control get their way, there will be no better example of this principle. Gun control would result in a less peaceful, more dangerous society.
|
31
|
21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00003-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, "Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain." Sources http://obesity.procon.org...
|
5
|
83b3cb3a-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00002-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
America's healthcare is superior to Canada's http://www.youtube.com... A. Access/Equity: In Canada everyone is universally covered country wide; while in the US 13.3 % under 65 have no healthcare coverage [1]. Even with insurance in the US, benefits are based on your ability to pay. There are no issues with insurance portability when changing jobs in Canada. If you have a preexisting condition and change employment in the US, you can be denied coverage under your new employers insurance. Job opportunities missed due to worry of not gaining medical coverage. B. Costs: Medical costs are 10.4% of Canada's GDP, US 16% [2]. The US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and under-performs in healthcare results compared to Canada [3]. Canada per capital medical expenditures is $4,522 compared to US $8,508. More than ½ of personal bankruptcies in the US are attributed out of pocket medical costs relating to a serious illness or injury. Most of filerswere average age of 41, with some college education having children within the middle income bracket; not the poor. Medical bankruptcies arenot possible under the Canadian system [4, 5]. Over the last decade there has been a shift to higher % paid by employees in employer based health plans [6]. Between 2010-15 health insurance costs had risen by 27%, out pacing inflation and wage growth burdening both employee and employer. Average cost of a family plan is $17,500 per year, not including co-pays or deductibles [7]. "In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums." [8] C. Mortality/Longevity Lower Infant mortality rates 4 per/1,000 in Canada, 6/1,000 US [9]. Longevity rates in Canada is 81.76 years vs. US which ranks 43 globally at 79.69 [10]. Canada has fewer deaths vs. the US for treatable conditions [11]. D. Open System/Administration Canadians have are no restraints on doctors or hospitals. If an emergency should arise when traveling there's no bill to pay upon your return home. US insurance companies require in network doctors and hospitals; anything out of network is out of pocket. In Canada a person can choose whatever doctor they wish to see without a physician's concern with a patient's ability to pay. Canadian doctors are private and for fee based. Instead of dealing with hundreds of different insurers as in the US, they deal with only one insurer leaving more time for patient care over administrative tasks. Canadian admin. cost is 3% vs. US at 20-30% [37] The US has varying fee schedules, co–payments and eligibility requirements which beget higher costs [12]. The term "rationing" of healthcare services that is so demonized by US media is a fallacy. The rationing is based on need, where as in the US rationing is based on cost [13]. US insurance carriers routinely decide what tests and procedures are covered or not. E. Coordination and Continuity of Care: Canada has better medical IT systems for quicker access to information and care coordination. US doctors have difficulty receiving information in a timely manner and bogged down with administrative tasks [14]. Rebuttals: I. Wait times: Canada's General Accounting Office of Congress, "patients with immediate or life-threatening needs rarely wait for services" [15]Wait times (WT) are weighted by priority of need. Those who seek ELECTIVE procedures wait the longest. [38]. Considering mortality rates for treatable medical conditions is lower in Canada it appears that WTs have little bearing on outcomes [16]. In the US 45,000 deaths annually are attributed to lack of insurance [17]. WTs are growing in the US; more expensive and elective treatments have the shortest WTs vs. chronic conditions; profit motivation [18]. Wait times under US Medicaid and Medicare are rising with times between 2 wks-2 mo. [19]. II. Medicaid & Medicare: Medicaid does assist those just above and below the poverty line (PL), 16.4% of the population, and Medicare for the retired [20]. To be eligible for Medicaid earning must be at or below "$29,700 for a family of four." [21] With this income threshold 10.4 % of the population are still uninsured [22, 23]. Due to the maze of admin duties and low reimbursement rates, many physicians refuse to care for Medicaid/Medicare patients, lessening options for those who are ill. The US system is over bureaucratic and de-incentivizes physicians to care for this sector of the population [24, 25]. 15% under Medicare live below the PL and can't afford supplemental health insurance to fill in the gaps of Medicare. Often seniors don't fill prescriptions due to lack of prescription insurance coverage. This furthers exacerbates health conditions and contributes to higher costs to Medicare for otherwise treatable issues [26]. The fee schedule for Canada's Medicare is far less complex and is negotiated by province; even with this physician's earnings remain higher than the general public and are competitive with US [27, 28]. The majority of middle class Americans with employee sponsored plans pay 10% of their income goes toward insurance; individual plans 22% of income. Many are underinsured or fail to seek medical help due to expensive co-pays and high deductibles that weigh heavily of family budgets [29]. III. Specialization: (See video top of round). Less than 1% of Canadians seek care in the US [30]. More recent than your 1998/1999 study explains the causes of rising medical cost, 2016. Drugs and new technologies are the major causes of rising costs. New technologies do not always result in better outcomes. Administrative cost has risen to 20-30%. Nowhere in your citations studies does it state that Canadians are seeking specialized services in the US. PRO:"Now had it not been for the private system these advancements would not have been made and the life expectancy would not have thrived …"Life expectancy in Canada is higher than in the US. IV. Cheapest Prices/Competition: As stated earlier, the US spends more money on healthcare than any other country. It's competition in pricing is within the framework of what the market will bear, especially with drug companies, [31] as well as the push for new trendy treatments that might not have a higher benefit over the old in an effort to be completive with other hospitals; new is not always better, but certainly more expensive; marketing of medical services over actual medical value [31]. V. Doctor Choice: In the US insurance policies dictate the selection of doctors within a network of providers. Seeking doctors out of network will result in uncovered total out of pocket expense. In Canada anyone can see any doctor without restriction, a doctor or hospital's reputation on care is easily accessible for any Canadian's to review [32, 33]. VI. Health care is not a right? An opinion. If you have a sick or injured child and cannot afford medical attention, as a parent aren't you denying this innocent his right to health and well being? We are all a part of a society and must contribute to the welfare of its whole for stability, as we do with police, fire, and public works. Not caring for members of a society who fall ill increases burden upon others and lowers productivity of all involved. Society bears higher costs for an unhealthy population than a healthy one. A doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath to benefit the sick above all else including payment for services. To deny health services due to lack of ability to pay is inhumane. What will the result be? Are we to put down the poor ill like dogs when their burden of care becomes overwhelming [34]? Canada has done a fine job of eliminating the middleman of insurers to keep costs down; there is no profit incentive so costs are held low. See above for the GDP of Canada's cost of health care over the US. It speaks for itself. VII. Drug Availability: As you stated the US has the FDA which has an intensive drug approval process to determine if drugs are safe prior to distribution [35, 36]. Canada has a similar process. I fail to see the point here. VIII. Refusal of Treatment: Yes, hospitals cannot turn away patients based on their ability to pay. Again, due to the numbers of uninsured this places a financial burden on these institutions that have to make up the loss in revenue on the backs of those who have insurance. This is not an issue in Canada. Also, many doctors are refusing Medicare/Medicare patients due to low reimbursements rates and bureaucracy lessening the availability of doctors of individuals in these systems. X. Paying for things you find morally wrong: This again as is in healthcare as a right, is a personal value judgment of morality which is subjective and metaphysical in nature, not one based on secular notions of what is best for a society as a whole. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. http://tinyurl.com... 17. http://tinyurl.com... 18. http://tinyurl.com... 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com... 32. http://tinyurl.com... 33. http://tinyurl.com... 34. http://tinyurl.com... 35. http://tinyurl.com.... 36. http://tinyurl.com... 37. http://tinyurl.com... 38. http://tinyurl.com...
|
23
|
dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00004-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.
|
18
|
b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00003-000
|
Should churches remain tax-exempt?
|
Churches Ought not be Taxed Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.
|
11
|
df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00003-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Muslims should be accepted in America Over 250,000 Muslims are terrorists. That is a fact. Thousands of Muslims enter the U.S. everyday. That is also a fact. Do the math dumbfuck. For all we know you could be a terrorist.
|
17
|
e10704a3-2019-04-18T17:06:23Z-00001-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana. In my final response for this debate, I will respond to my opponent's arguments from the previous round and conclude my portion of the debate with the reasons as to why the voters should consider me as the winner of the said debate. [Con Arguments] Automobile Accidents/Opponent's Evidence: Essentially what my opponent has conceded to is that there is a lack of methodology in both pieces of his evidence that corrects his data for any lurking variables. This alone shows that his evidence is unreliable because the data is skewed or misrepresented, in addition to finding contradictory findings, as I've pointed out earlier. My opponent says that the purpose of showing his evidence was to show on an organization's findings, but those findings are moot without the methodology's legitimization, meaning his evidence can't be looked at. My opponent has made no arguments against my explanation as to why his evidence is contradictory, so it can only be assumed that my opponent conceded to this point as well. The only legitimization for the evidence that my opponent provides is that he says is an ad Authoritatum argument that it comes from the National Institutes of Health, as if they're an exception to quality experimentation and survey analysis. Objective DUI Test: It took time to make an objective test for alcohol DUIs, and it'll take time in order to make an objective test for marijuana DUIs. However, rather than saying that there is no possibility for such a thing to be done, my opponent implies that an objective test can be created. There are ways that police officers can check for the use of other drugs, including marijuana, through an eye test [1], and while the objectiveness of such a test is questionable, it does mean that the creation of an objective test is a possibility. My opponent makes no arguments against the cost of making an objective test in order to determine DUIs, so I believe it to mean that he concedes to the idea that the funds from marijuana legalization could fund the creation of a test. My opponent talks about children dying on the streets of Georgia, something that I honestly find a bit of an exaggeration, especially considering he conceded to the point that legalization of marijuana won't necessarily increase marijuana use or acquisition in adolescents, that he has provided no arguments against the idea that legalization would provide a more effective deterrent against the use of marijuana among adolescents, and that his data show that about 7% of fatal car accidents involve marijuana—many of them involving the use of other illegal substances or alcohol. Possibility of Legalization: It's impossible to say that individual states cannot legalize marijuana when two states have already done it for recreational purposes. Additionally, let's remember that these states aren't the only ones that have legalized marijuana if you include other states that legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, even Montana and New Mexico—two more conservative states that legalized marijuana during the incumbency of George W. Bush. A quicker legalization could at least secure some annual funds during the current Obama administration, but the general trend of marijuana laws shows an increasing possibility of reforms to the American status quo. In fact, the House of Representatives is currently under the process of reviewing a bill that would have federal agents respect state marijuana laws—proving the existence of the mentioned trend. "If passed, people who are in compliance with their state laws concerning marijuana will not be subject to federal penalty under the Controlled Substances Act. 'This bipartisan bill represents a common-sense approach that establishes federal government respect for all states' marijuana laws,' Rohrabacher said in a prepared statement, 'It does so by keeping the federal government out of the business of criminalizing marijuana activities in states that don't want it to be criminal.' With 21 states and Washington, D.C. already having approved medical marijuana, and two states already legal, along with the new poll which just came out showing 58% in support of legalization in Texas, it's essentially a matter of when the federal government will reform its marijuana laws." [2] [Reasons to Vote Pro] Proven Benefits Over Harms: Regardless of the amount of time spent on the automobiles argument, not only have I proven all of the other benefits to the state of Georgia from marijuana legalization, but my opponent has conceded to almost all of them. I've proven the monetary benefits of legalization, the better deterrence from legalization, and the reductions to crime, all of them providing a primarily positive outcome to legalization. Because I've proven a primarily positive outcome, I've proven that the state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Feasibility of Legalization: Considering the two states that had already legalized the recreational use of marijuana and the other states that have legalized the use for medicinal reasons, this alone proves that legalizing marijuana is feasible, and it helps show a pattern of changing drug policy. This was a bit of a deviation from the topic considering that we're arguing whether or not a state should legalize marijuana rather if it can, but nevertheless, I've proven that it can. Evidence: The evidence that I've provided is much more effective than my opponent's. It's coherent and adjusts for lurking variables, unlike my opponent's evidence. Henceforth, my case is stronger because it's grounded in better information. For these reasons, I urge a Pro vote. [1] http://www.katu.com... [2] http://txcann.com...
|
44
|
2080394b-2019-04-18T15:35:04Z-00003-000
|
Should election day be a national holiday?
|
Is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical You have seemed in your first statement to have accepted that it is hypocritical to celebrate religious holiday's as an atheist but that it is an acceptable hypocrisy, as if the populace are celebrating, this is in itself a reason to also celebrate as an individual. The difference of course being if you label yourself as an atheist, rather than agnostic, undecided or even of a minority faith within the populace, you are actively of the belief in the REJECTION of a God/deity and therefore of any religion which concludes the existence of a God/deity. The act of rejection is to dismiss or refuse, so surely anything other than dismissal or refusal to participate within religious celebration is in itself hypocrisy. In relation to the other mentioned religiously based 'holidays' it is also hypocritical for an atheist to participate within their celebrations. St. Patricks day is misconstrued as a day to celebrate being 'irish' it is in fact a celebration of the catholic patron saint of Ireland st. Patrick, who is being celebrated for bringing Christianity/Catholicism to the people of Ireland. Irish people who celebrate this day are not just celebrating the fact that they are irish, but the fact that they are irish Catholics. This holiday was brought to and popularised in America due to the number of Irish Catholic immigrants who have settled there. As someone who is from Ireland and was born in Belfast, I can categorically tell you that in Ireland only irish Catholics actively participate in the celebration of st. Patricks day, irish Protestants for instance refrain from celebration as they reject the ideology. St. Valentines day is slightly more ambiguous but still nether the less is a solely religiously based idea, st. Valentine was a Christian priest or bishop in the 3rd century who (although not absolute historical fact) was executed by roman Claudius II, for conducting marriages which had been outlawed, it is claimed that on the day of st. Valentines execution on February 14th that he sent a love letter to a lady signed 'from your valentine'. Valentines day is also related to an earlier pre Christian holiday Lupercalia, a celebration of a roman God. Halloween, known by Catholics as all saints eve/night, is a catholic religiously observed holiday it's roots are heavily based in celtic mythology and paganism and is a holiday which has again been bought to and popularised in America by its irish/Scottish immigrants, it is totally religiously based. In America however the lines have been blurred for many religious holidays, as America is a capitalist nation, it Capitalises on such holidays for financial gain, rather than there true meaning of religious holiday, corporations, company's and media outlets promote aspects of religious holiday to 'all' within society as means of making money from them. This however does not change or alter the fact that they are religious holidays which celebrate the belief in a religion which promotes a God/deity theory, which atheists actively reject. As I made clear in my first argument, I am not suggesting that to prove ones atheistic beliefs they should deliberately offend the populace, but that to participate within or to benefit from the celebration itself is hypocritical to the beliefs and ideologies of atheism. Atheism ironically is classified as a religion, and to classify yourself as an atheist is making a 'statement'. I would assume that as you have taken up the con position to this debate that you are an atheist, therefore are making a statement that you are in rejection to the belief of the populace, so in claiming that you can still continue to participate with celebration of the populace's religious holidays, which are inevitably a celebration of religious scripture, doctrine and of the idea that God does infact exist, is undoubtedly hypocritical. So onto ownership of the holiday of Christmas, it can almost certainly in modern history be seen to be owned by Christianity, irrespective of wether or not it was the actual birth date of Jesus, it is what is being celebrated. Denial of this is nonsensical, to deny that you are celebrating the birth of Jesus because historically Jesus may actually have been born on a different date is simply silly, wether Jesus was born on December 25th or not, Christmas is still ultimately the celebration of his birth, so ultimately a celebration of Christmas is the celebration of Jesus/Christianity. Another argument atheists may have, is that prior to Christianity's influx into Europe an extremely similar holiday took place around the same time the 'winter solstice' and that Christianity adapted this holiday to fit in with the changing of beliefs of the new converts. This is true, it is extremely likely that Christianity took the winter solstice and changed the ideology into representing Christian values rather than pagan values. But this argument in itself makes no difference if you are indeed an atheist, because the winter solstice itself was a religious festival/holiday which was celebrating the belief in a God/deity by pagans, and would be contradictory to the belief in atheism. As I have previously stated there can be no rebuttal to the question, 'is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical' it is fundamentally hypocritical, it is however a hypocrisy that is accepted amongst atheists, an argument of if you can't beat them join them ect does not make you any less hypocritical for doing so.
|
29
|
90d30959-2019-04-18T11:36:39Z-00000-000
|
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?
|
Guns Should Become Illegal in the US I accept, thank You. You realize that you have NO basis for your conclusion whatsoever, but certainly try anyway.
|
40
|
ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00001-000
|
Should the death penalty be allowed?
|
Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia My opponent didn't actually outline a case against the death penalty.The death penalty isn't just about enacting revenge, as my opponent assumes. 1. The Death Penalty protects others from potentially being infringed upon in the future.2. The death penalty is an actual punishment. Prison is not. Some people will purposely get themselves into prison, just to survive off the government.3. Justice is not strictly about revenge. Due cause does not have to erase the bad things someone did, and it never will. It's about giving the criminal the same treatment they gave their victim to equivilate the crime to the punishment.4. Again, why just Australia? Should the Death Penalty be allowed everywhere else?
|
47
|
ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00005-000
|
Is homework beneficial?
|
Homework Should Not Be Required [ Arguments ] There are several reasons that people support homework:1. To reinforce what is being taught in the classroom2. To enable parents to engage in their child's education3. To help children prepare for tests and state exams4. To teach fundamental skills such as time managementHowever I will be arguing that1. Homework does not fuel academic success2. Homework inhibits family time and burdens parents3. Homework infringes on playtime and recreation time4. Homework fosters resentment that is detrimental and unnecessaryPoint 1 Let's begin with the supposition that homework is vital to one's education. In fact, there is almost no evidence that homework helps elementary school students achieve academic success, and little more that it helps older students. A study led by an Indiana University School of Education faculty member finds little correlation between time spent on homework and better course grades [1].Using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) we can see how homework impacts academic achievement around the world. According to TIMSS data, homework is not associated with high national or international levels of academic achievement [2].Adam Maltese and his colleagues analyzed the amount of time students spent on homework to their academic success. Research showed there was no relationship whatsoever between time spent on homework and course grade, and "no substantive difference in grades between students who complete homework and those who do not" [3]. Whereas the research showed a slight improvement in standardized test scores for students who did more homework, this improvement is described as being "very modest." The fact is, you can't "reinforce" understanding the way you can reinforce a behavior. If you had a hard time understanding the lesson in class, chances are you won't have an easier time understanding it (if you can understand it at all) through the assignment of homework. I will be glad to expand on the research if my opponent challenges this contention.Point 2Homework places a burden on parents. After working all day, parents are required to go home and not only take care of their household, but help their child complete additional work. This is stressful and can often cause family conflict. Indeed many parents have rebelled against homework [4] and some have even taken legal action (and won) to not have to suffer the burden of this homework obligation [5]. Parents should be able to choose what the best way to teach their children is outside of the classroom, which may or may not be reviewing their day's lesson. Homework can cut into important personal and family time [6]. Rather than bonding by spending quality time with their loved ones, homework requires students continue working rather than strengthening their personal relationships. A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids away from school, where family, friends and activities matter [7]. It can also emphasize the mentality that work is more important than family. Researcher Alfie Kohn notes, "We parents, meanwhile, turn into nags. After being away from our children all day, the first words out of our mouths, sadly, may be: 'So, did you finish your homework?' One mother told me it permanently damaged her relationship with her son because it forced her to be an enforcer rather than a mom" [8]. Moreover, each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy homework response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Further, homework arguably places an unnecessary burden on teachers in addition to parents. Rather than spending time planning their lessons, grading classwork or working on their own self-improvement, teachers have to spend time grading "busy work" that they can't be sure the child has even completed on their own. While some suggest that homework teaches kids about responsibility, most of the time it needs asssistance from parents. In the early years especially, it often cannot be done without parental guidance (so much for teaching independence!).Point 3 After spending all day in school, children are forced to begin a "second shift" of work which can include hours of additional assignments. This deprives children of time for other physical and creative activities, or even time to rest. Homework leads kids to be frustrated and tired to the point of inhibiting their learning. For one thing they might become bored or impatient with the perpetual tasks; for another they might be too drained to focus on them. Homework consistently builds a hateful relationship with learning [9]. While we don't give slow-working children a longer school day, we consistently give them a longer homework day. Kids who take longer to read, grasp the work or work more slowly in general have less time for non-academic education compared to their peers. Learning an instrument, playing sports, working on the arts, and even general playtime has significant benefits to a child's health, wellness and intellectual development [10]. Recreational activities can teach all kinds of useful life lessons and skills that pertain to schoolwork and beyond. Point 4 Homework is known for "causing a loss of sleep, of self esteem, of cheer, and of childhood" [11]. "It extinguishes the flame of curiosity." A child is not engaged through homework but rather disengaged through "drill and kill" methods that provide little to no utility. Homework also widens the gap between high and low achievers, and can increase pressure to do well. This in turn can encourage cheating and may disproportionately punish low-income or minority students in disadvantages situations. As for proposed alternatives, "The best teachers know that children learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions... At least two investigators have found that the most impressive teachers (as defined by various criteria) tend to involve students in decisions about assignments rather than simply telling them what they'll have to do at home" [12]. As such, we can improve the status quo by asking students the best way to reinforce what they have learned in class. While this might include some work from home, it probably won't look like the standard version of homework that is uniform, repetitive and monotonous. Perhaps teachers and parents can work with each student individually to figure out their goals and best methods of learning based on their habits, skill set and home environment. [1] http://research.indiana.edu...[02] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[03] Adam V. Maltese, Robert H. Tai, and Xitao Fan, "When Is Homework Worth the Time? Evaluating the Association Between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math," The High School Journal, October/November 2012: 52-72. [04] http://www.nationalpost.com...[05] http://www.theguardian.com...[06] Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.[07] https://news.stanford.edu...[08] http://www.familycircle.com...[09] http://www.salon.com...[10] http://www.parks.ca.gov...[11] http://www.21learn.org...[12] http://www.alfiekohn.org...
|
46
|
877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00003-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
Net neutrality laws. I understand but it's just annoying for me, since I was trying to look for a serious debate.
|
20
|
3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00008-000
|
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
|
Should we drink milk I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol
|
26
|
9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00000-000
|
Do standardized tests improve education?
|
Test This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.
|
7
|
36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00005-000
|
Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?
|
You Choose the Topic! 2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.
|
36
|
d7f23f2c-2019-04-18T18:51:11Z-00003-000
|
Is golf a sport?
|
The game of G--f ought to be eliminated. With many thanks to Chrysippus for this posing this most interesting challenge, I should like to begin by reminding the voters of the huge benefit golf clubs provide to (upper class) members of (high) society. Because membership of golf clubs is usually very expensive, it precludes any proles, riff-raff, oiks, chavs, skulking loafers, people that might appear as guests on The Jerry Springer Show and other frightfully common people from joining, and thus, spoiling the sport for the toffs, snobs, aristocrats and the other particularly posh people who are rich enough to become members. Thus, golf provides an oasis of wealth and prosperity where investment bankers can get inside information on forthcoming mergers and acquisitions; where property developers can 'discuss the merits' of their planning applications with influential politicians and 'buy them a drink' in acknowledgment of their 'kind understanding' and where other discussions of a delicate nature can take place: a golf course provides a discrete environment away from any envious peasants, prying left-wing journalists and nosey tax inspectors. Where else would this be possible? Maybe an exclusive yacht club, but what about oil barons, property tycoons, steel magnates and media moguls who don't live by the sea? Where would they do their under-the-counter deals if golf clubs were banned? Now, to address my opponent's points in turn: 1 – Health and Safety. ------------------------- Golf is not a sport for poor people. For example: Yellowstone Club World Membership costs $4-10 million and this is in addition to green fees, annual dues and minimum dining fees that run into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. [1] This means that golfers can generally afford to spend money on employing fawning lackeys (which they call "caddies") to carry their gear, drive their golf karts and protect them from rain or sun with an umbrella. And there is little danger to golfers from stray golf balls, by the way. Indeed, in recent years, only one professional has been badly injured in connection with golf: that was Tiger Woods in 2009 and it wasn't a golf ball that injured him, it was a 9-iron golf club that his wife wrapped round his head after she found out he'd been getting his end away with some cheap floozy on the sly. [2] It is true that golf balls and roads don't mix, however, but that's why golf clubs use their super-rich members' influence and power to ensure they don't. For example, when a new dual-carriageway (highway) was proposed to link London with Ramsgate in Kent, the route took it straight across Chesterfield Golf Club. Incensed, the club's members used their political connections to force the Highways Agency to route the new road, at huge extra expense to the taxpayer, through a tunnel beneath the golf course. Still, there were concerns that stray golf balls may hit vehicles as they entered the tunnels so every time a player tees off on the fairway above the road, the traffic is forced to stop and wait at automated traffic signals while the player takes his shot. [3,4] 2 – Clothing -------------- It is also true that golfers' clothes are pretty atrocious, there's no denying that: and clearly most golfers have more money than taste; but still they are confined to their golf clubs where few people can be offended by their garish attire. Not like chavs, who hang around the streets in hideously ugly clothes in full sight of small children and nervous old ladies. [5,6,7,8,9,10] In conclusion, the mega-rich are human beings and they have human rights just like anyone else and, therefore, they should not be denied the freedom to go to golf clubs to show off how wealthy they are or to do dodgy business deals or, occasionally, play a round or two of golf. Thank you. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.thesun.co.uk... [3] http://www.geograph.org.uk... [4] http://maps.google.com... [5] http://www.motifake.com... [6] http://www.cslacker.com... [7] http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk... [8] http://i.telegraph.co.uk... [9] http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk... [10] http://richandcreamy.typepad.com...
|
43
|
aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00000-000
|
Should bottled water be banned?
|
Bottled water is harmful That was an interesting concession. Haven't seen that before. As someone pointed out in the comments, if you thought you were going to get someone who agreed with you then why'd you start a debate? Anyway I had fun, and at least you stuck around to the end instead of bailing! Thanks for the debate, best of luck at the polls and in your future debates. -InnovativeEphemera
|
6
|
f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00002-000
|
Is a college education worth it?
|
Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Rebuttal 1:The millennial generation can be characterised as being 'interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns', helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that 'money is the best measure of success', in contrast to 78% of the total population (2) - lighth0us3This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well. With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community. Rebuttal 2:P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. - lighth0us3Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated. Agreement 1:P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) This is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation. I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.Rebuttal 3There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don't even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. -lighth0us3 But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). -lighth0us3 Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. -lighth0us3 The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience. I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed. Rebuttal 5This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) -lighth0us3 Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected.Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education) Source:[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...
|
50
|
dca59d96-2019-04-18T18:16:43Z-00003-000
|
Should everyone get a universal basic income?
|
minimum wage should exist The minimum wage is bad.I began this round with a quote from the economist Henry Hazlitt: "You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation."Clearly, minimum wage causes unemployment. About this, another economist, Walter Williams, says regarding jobs that were cut back or eliminated due to minimum wage restrictions:"None of these jobs paid much, but then I wasn't worth much. But the real value of early work experiences is much more important than the little change a kid can earn. You learn how to keep a job. You learn how to be prompt, respect and obey superiors, and develop good work habits and attitudes that can pay off in the future. Additionally, there is the self-respect and pride that comes from being financially semi-independent." Hardest hit by the minimum wage are the poor and children just entering the work force. Naturally having a minimum wage means the most menial jobs have to be cut, because you're not going to pay someone the minimum wage to just sweep a floor or something. That's why when you go into McDonalds, you see the cashiers making the food and sweeping the floor during off-peak hours.The apple analogy, which I found while randomly googling this debate topic, puts this in the most logical way I can imagine. If the government mandates higher prices for apples, people who would have bought cheaper apples now buy no apples at all. The same with labor.Some more economists, David Neumark and Olena Nizalova, found ironically that young workers in states with a lower minimum wage earned more money on average than workers in states with high minimum wages. Minimum wages aren't terribly helpful. Also, the unemployment costs are higher than they originally appear. Inability to gain entry-level positions primarily for job experience make it difficult to apply for better paying jobs. Pretty much any time you want to apply to a job, you already need work experience, but you can't get it from anywhere because no one is willing to pay the minimum wage to an unreferenced and untested person. With fewer wages at stake, more businesses are willing to take the risk of hiring a new entry to the labor force.Professor Joseph Sabia also studied the effects of the minimum wage on single mothers with high school diplomas only. He found in general that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, they saw a 9% decrease in wages.I don't really want to rebut my opponent too much in Round 1, but I notice that they wrote "a lower wage if we're lucky might drop it a point or two, as the rest aren't employable at all" and I cannot help but dispute that. The unemployment rate (as people ought to know by now because of the recent playing with statistics) is based on the people who are trying to find work but can't. No one who is actually trying to find work is honestly completely unemployable, but they are unemployable when you have to pay them a minimum of $7.25 to do even the most basic of tasks.My opponent's side rant is also confusing to me. The minimum wage is well known for hurting the poor, so why does my opponent support it?
|
8
|
dc00946b-2019-04-18T14:03:29Z-00001-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion should remain legal in the US First things first: When making this debate, I was in a rush and I had copied the debate itinerary from another one of my debates, and forgot to change the settings so that this would be a 4 round debate. I have spoken with Nonsense, and we have agreed to continue the debate as normal, and in place of a fourth round, I will start a new 1 round debate which will act as the round for our rebuttals and conclusions. Thanks to the Con for accepting this debate! I wish this to be a fair and great debate! To reiterate, I will be arguing the following statement: "Abortion should remain legal in the United States." With that, I will clarify the conditions of my contention. I am arguing that any abortion restrictions and laws should remain as they are, with no suggested changes or additions. I am arguing that current abortion regulations need to stay the way they are. This means that my contention also suggests that abortion should not be outlawed, and that other forms of abortion should not be made legal if not already. This is an important part of my argument. Also, while my personal views on abortion are varied, I still argue my statement because I know it is the best for society. I encourage any readers and also the Con to take an unbiased approach to reading and taking part in this debate. Now, my first argument: I: Women have the right to choose what to do with their body It is a known fact and idea, that everyone is entitled to the right to choose. To choose what brand of food they wish to buy from the store, or what color to die their hair. We also have the right to choose on decisions that have to do with our bodies. In a life or death situation for another person, legally, you have the right to choose whether you want to donate the means to save that person's life (without legal consequences). [1] In the same way, we are also entitled to choice when it comes to things that have immediate or prolonged consequences, such as committing a crime or doing drugs. Stretching that idea out, women have the right to have an abortion, as it is a part of their body. We know this because the society we live in is all based off of the free choice of Americans. At the current standards, a woman seeking an abortion goes through many steps to actually terminate her pregnancy. Depending on the state, some are required to go through counseling, and permission from a parent (in minors) or a doctor-- however, all over America, women seeking an abortion go through the shaming of society of their decision, while still making the decision to terminate their pregnancy. [2] We know that a lot of things are being done to deter that choice, but like a good and civilized society, we still allow those women to have their freedom of choice. II: Personhood doesn't begin until viability After arguing the reasoning as to why women undoubtedly have the right to their own body, the question still remains: when do fetuses have the right to their own body? It is a known fact, in science and in the law, that life in the womb begins when the fetus is capable of living on its own. When is this? "..20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive."[3] So generally, fetuses are more than likely to be considered viable at 26-27 weeks, and in the most rare cases, maybe 23 weeks. A vast majority of states ban abortions after 20 weeks, while some even ban abortions after12 weeks. [4] Abortion isn't even legal while the fetus is considered viable! So, if the fetus is not yet its own person, not yet capable of even surviving outside of the womb, then it is assumed that everything is indeed a part of the woman's body. This means until the fetus has reached personhood, women have the right to choose what to do withtheir body. This means that if abortion is only legal while the fetus is not capable of living on its own, then abortion is not an illegal practice, and should remain a legal option to women in early stages of pregnancy. III: Completely enforcing anti-abortion laws is impossible Let's assume just momentarily that abortion was banned everywhere. In a situation where Congress easily passed legislation that prevented women from getting abortions in any conditions, and no other country in the world provided legal options to terminate a pregnancy. This would still not prevent abortions from occurring. Women seeking an abortion for whatever reason, are more than likely still going to get an abortion in whatever way possible, despite it being illegal. People argue all the time, "If you make guns illegal, people are still going to get guns, just illegally." This is a true statement that has just as much truth when it comes to abortions. You just simply can't forbid a woman from terminating her pregnancy and hope that laws and regulations are going to act as a deterrent in a world like that. This leads to my next argument; IV: The risk of illegal abortions This is my last and most important argument. In that country where no woman could legally get an abortion, they will find a way to get one should their situation be that desperate. This will lead to illegal abortions, which are not safe at all. When a person that decides they cannot have a baby for social or financial reasons, and they are determined that they do not have the means to bring a child into the world, then they will also be determined to end that pregnancy in anyway possible. This is a sad but absolutely true statement. Illegal abortions took place in the so called back-alleys, and they were not safe or something anyone wanted to think about. Before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions were done in many terrible ways, some of which including coat hangers, illegal drugs, knitting needles or even a punch to the stomach. These methods were unsafe, and led to many women dying as a result of it. The statistics are saddening. [5] It has been wisely said, "Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of abortions, but rather the end of women dying because of them." This is my strongest and main argument to keeping abortion legal in the United States. Abortion needs to remain to be a legal option for women, as it is their choice, and it is not up to anyone else. Whether we disagree with their decisions or not, certified abortion clinics should remain to be legally open to any women in any circumstances. [1]https://www.academia.edu...... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... [4] http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...... [5] https://www.guttmacher.org......
|
45
|
7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00004-000
|
Should the penny stay in circulation?
|
The US should abolish the penny I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.
|
20
|
f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00001-000
|
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
|
Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has forfeited this round. I will hold my argument in case he wishes to continue.
|
29
|
ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00019-000
|
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?
|
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Illegal immigrant parents are to blame for having children abroad.
|
17
|
bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00001-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) I was wondering when I would get a response. I find this topic very important and enjoy debating it. As per your request, I will focus on medical as well as recreational purposes this round. To begin with, marijuana used medically has proven very useful for a medication. Your fact that marijuana has some negative side effects is true; smoking anything in general can harmful for your lungs. However, the panic attacks, paranoia, etc., are effected by the environment and you mood when smoking. To go along with that, what strain of marijuana smoked does matter. Certain strains will make you more tired and sluggish or active and energetic. A main use for medical marijuana is that it reduces pain. Medical marijuana advocates in other states have said that when diagnosed, they have tried pills or other "big pharma" recommendations. When these do not work, many turned to alcohol. Once medical marijuana was allowed, they reported that they had finally found a medication that worked and had less side effects along with the fact that they worked better for them. As for the recreational reasons, the U.S. has an incredibly high incarceration rate; the highest in the world. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana related arrests, 88% of those were for simply possessing marijuana. If marijuana was decriminalized and legalized recreationally, the arrest rate would in turn drop. Another use of recreational marijuana would be that it would reduce the number of deaths from other, much more harmful drugs. In states with recreational use, especially with Colorado, deaths related to Opium, which can be made into pills or drugs such has heroine, have decreased dramatically. If we were to instate proper laws, like those in states with medical and recreation use, (age requirements, laws against smoking in public, issuing proper medical use licenses) along with creating proper laws making driving while under the influence illegal, medical and recreational uses will prove useful and helpful, as well as fun. If it is alright with you, may we discuss the economic effects of legalization next?
|
39
|
aedf4296-2019-04-18T18:38:32Z-00006-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
Minimum wage Having a minimum wage is a good thing. Despite my opponent's claims, minimum wage has not increased unemployment. I also believe that minimum wage should not and does not play a role when it comes to immigration. I look forward to this debate, and I will wait to hear my opponent's arguments before making my own points clear.
|
29
|
abb8f548-2019-04-18T18:08:58Z-00001-000
|
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?
|
This House Supports Free Immigration Many thanks Con for keeping up a spirited debate! Good luck! LAST POST: "There is no evidence to support this. Aforementioned, there is no evidence to support the claim. I went on to the answer query put forth and gave credence to the fact that this has nothing to do with free immigration. As with the initial argument, brain drain (is an issue of pay and skill) should be separated from the issue of free immigration. "If Cons argument on overpopulation in America My argument isn"t primarily about overpopulation, it"s about an overpopulation of unskilled workers seeking jobs. This will kill the economy. America already has high unemployment rates, my opponent wishes to add to this. I do not seek to hinder our country. A: Unemployment is not the sole matter of free immigration, when our companies seek cheap labor from international sources. Maybe we should selling production to China too. ""I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." This exactly proves my point. Unemployment will reach an all-time high under this resolution. A: Exactly, I have unwitting answered my own argument above. "However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly. This is clearly incorrect. Welfare and immigration are clearly and distinctly linked with each other. One is not causation, but there is a correlation between the two. This is simple, more immigrants come and need welfare, thus welfare is overstretched and creates problems. Clearly the two are related. A: The proof is in the pudding. "In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. Congratulations on that, but as this is a personal experience it cannot be considered evidence in this debate. A: I gave the evidence quite clearly e.g. The Guardian; shows 4 out of the top 6 universities in the world are indeed from England, a country basically the size of FL. Free immigration has really trounced the education system in England. "Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK. But this is merely in one area (and based off of personal experience) in the United States illegal immigration to California has affected their $42-44 billion deficit, causing teachers to be laid off and clearly effecting education. A: I am not opposed to CA teachers being laid off, in fact I think we should disband the entire Teacher Union while we are at it " it is nothing short of being the 4th Reich! "My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests. I am happy to hear that your aunt has made a full recovery, but as I have stated above this is personal experience and cannot be considered evidence. Furthermore, in Arizona $2 billion dollars of their $4 billion dollar deficit is directly attributed to education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants. [3] This deficit brings down services for everyone because there isn"t enough money. If we accepted this resolution, even more people would come and drain more money out of our economy. A: As above, education, health care, and the justice system has nothing to do with free immigration. The point here was that the is a free and fantastic health care service where everybody is seen immediately, regardless of condition " a health care system which has not been trounced by free immigration as you expressed in using the UK as evidence. "No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. I have shown (with sources) that social services are directly affected by immigration. A: as above. "Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, I have never said this in my speech and I never will. My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I did not say that these cultures would compromise American culture. A: you said: "it doesn"t encourage cultural diversity at all." I have shown it does. "The only question remains what to do about public property. The issue here with free immigration is not property issues at all. A: Yes it is, this is why you do not want new people in our country. "Immigration controls are expensive. We already have immigration controls in place. What my opponent would rather do is just open up the country completely. A: an absurd "no". "Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. As I have shown in the beginning of my speech, the constitution has no place in this debate. A: Yes it does, the courts have held otherwise and support the argument I advance. The constitution is a living document as is the European Convention of Human Rights. The Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed, e.g. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). In Yick Wo, the case involved the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Another fine example is (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903). Plyler v. Doe (1982): In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term" The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents." Allow me to now advance my position: EQUAL PROTECTION: THE CONSTITUTION: When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights. In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction." While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans. IMMIGRATION: A moment"s reflection will convince any disinterested party that free immigration is not necessarily invasive. Immigration consists of no more than moving to a foreign country. For the purist libertarian, national boundaries are only lines on a map, demarcating one "country" from another; there is no such thing as a legitimate nation-state. According to Rothbard: [T]here can be no such thing as an "international trade" problem. For nations might then possibly continue as Of course, if they are themselves murderers, and are escaping to another country in order to avoid paying the just penalties for their foul deeds, or are escaping with private property stolen from its rightful owners, this is an entirely different matter. No longer do we have here innocent people merely attempting to better their own lives. Now, the "migrants" are themselves the criminals. Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration cultural expressions, but not as economically meaningful units. Since there would be neither trade nor other barriers between nations nor currency differences, "international trade" would become a mere appendage to a general study of interspatial trade. It would not matter whether the trade was within or outside a nation. Therefore, immigration across national boundaries should be analyzed in an identical manner to that migration which takes place within a country. If it is non-invasive for Jones to change his locale from one place in Misesania to another in that country, then it cannot be invasive for him to move from Rothbardania to Misesania. Alternatively, if migration across international borders is somehow illegitimate, this should apply to the domestic variety as well. As long as the immigrant moves to a piece of private property whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee), there can be nothing untoward about such a transaction. This, along with all other capitalist acts between consenting adults, must be considered valid in the libertarian world. Note that there is no freedom of movement of the person per se. This is always subject to the willingness of property owners in the host nation to accept the immigrant onto their land. Rothbard explains: [T]he private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the "human right" to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact the current immigration barriers restrict, not so much a "human right" to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if "Primus" wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don"t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.It is almost a certainty that there will in fact always be "other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to" immigrants. If this is not obvious based on common sense experience, the economics of discrimination suggests no other possible conclusion.16 If there are many owners who refuse to rent or sell to immigrants, the price the latter will have to pay will be high. But this will tend to induce those landowners on the margin to agree to accept immigrants. It must be the rare case indeed where in a country of millions of property owners there is not a single one willing to accept newcomers, even at the very highest prices they are willing to pay. In such a rare case, all those who adhere to libertarianism must indeed unite in opposing immigration, for, with Rothbard, there is no one "on whose property . . . someone else ha[s] the right to trample." But this is a theoretical curiosity, not something relevant to reality, or to public policy analysis. In real world countries, certainly including the U.S., there can be found thousands, if not millions, of landowners willing to sell or rent space to people from all parts of the globe, no matter how obscure. For example, restaurateurs pecializing in the foods common to foreign lands may wish to hire authentic foreign-born cooks. As a practical matter, it is inconceivable that some citizen property owners, whose families themselves immigrated in the past, would not be interested in taking in their countrymen, particularly at the very high remuneration available if most landlords do not wish to deal with the immigrants. The case is equally clear for allowing immigrants to settle on unowned land. When there is virgin territory, there is no legitimate reason for immigrants (or domestic citizens) to be prevented from bringing it into fruitful production. States Rothbard: "Everyone should have the right to appropriate as his property previously unowned land or other resources."18 "Everyone," presumably, includes immigrants as well as citizens or residents of the home country. Mises, from a utilitarian rather than a natural-rights libertarian position, considered immigration an important element of freedom and progress: Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 175 The principles of freedom, which have gradually been gaining ground everywhere since the eighteenth entury, gave people freedom of movement. The growing security of law facilitates capital movements, improvement of transportation facilities, and the location of production away from the points of consumption. That coincides" not by chance"with a great revolution in the entire technique of production and with drawing the entire earth"s surface into world trade. The world is gradually approaching a condition of free movement of persons and capital goods. THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AND THE HISTORY OF FREE IMMIGRATION AND LIBERTY: The early 1920s were a logical time for such legislation, for it was the tail end of what is called the Progressive Era. The progressives were a loose movement of Americans who advocated a hugely expansive and interventionist government, both at home and abroad. They championed electoral reform, business regulations, income taxation, and government-enforced personal morality. By the time the three presidents of the Progressive Era " Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson " were done with their progressive reforms, America had seen the largest expansion in government power, and most significant shift in national politics, since the Civil War. Much of their agenda was accomplished in these three administrations " antitrust legislation, food and drug regulation, environmental "protection," a graduated income tax, central banking, and sweeping reforms in local political procedures. The United States embarked for the first time on an imperialist foreign policy in 1898 with the Spanish American War, and the progressives continued this policy in Latin America and eventually in the nationalization of American industry and mobilization of millions of conscripts for U.S. entry into World War I. The progressives also tended to believe in temperance, and they had a strong anti-immigrant streak not unlike Con. Their successes in these two arenas didn"t come until the very end of the Progressive Era, with the alcohol prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act of 1920, and with the Immigration Act of 1921. The Republican administrations in the 1920s had some distinct differences from the progressives, but they implemented the policies on immigration and alcohol for which the progressives had fought for years. Of course, the progressives were right once in a while, as on equal rights for women under the law. And the Great Society politicians in the 1960s were right once in a while, as in the relaxation of immigration controls in 1965. But by and large, the Progressive movement was one of the most harmful episodes for American liberty and constitutionally limited government in U.S. history. It was an essentially socialist movement, and American progressives of the early 20th century understood the incompatibility between a free immigration policy and a managed economy, as well as the logical correlation between such an economy and immigration controls. Sometimes the progressives cloaked their advocacy for immigration controls under a guise of wanting to help the immigrants, but, as with their Progressive foreign policies, their humanitarian rhetoric about foreigners did not translate into genuine compassion in the real world. Whereas many millions of free immigrants came to America in the early 20th century, the decades that followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1921 saw a severe decline in free immigration. This was tragic for those who wanted to enter America, most notably when huddled masses of European Jews sought refuge from Hitler"s terror but were denied entrance into the land of the free by Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most socialist presidents in American history. The history of free immigration in America coincides well with the history of liberty, and it shows the socialist origins of anti free immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, free immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. A welfare state may depend on such controls, but a free society should reject them. Severe restrictions on free immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies opposed in their efforts to bring liberty back to America. ONE LAST POINT: If free immigration were per se invasive, then, perhaps with the exception of true natives, the Indians, as Americans are all either immigrants or descended from them, our occupancy of this country would be legally questionable. Since no advocate of immigration restrictions has ever expressed any such reservations, there is a problem of logical consistency here, and immoral hypocrisy. I refer back to all of my original points, specifically the 98% that con failed to acknowledge, or deliberately sidestepped. "Freedom is a great thing, unchecked freedom is anarchy" " checked freedom is NOT freedom in the slightest. (Menlo Park,Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1977), p. 229, emphasis in original. 10For how long? Who knows? Whose business is it anyway? Walter Block " A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration 171 see Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (Larkspur, Colo.: Ralph Myles, [1870] 1966). 12See Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), for a thorough-going analysis of slavery. 14Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, [1962] 1993), p. 550. See also Rothbard, For A New Liberty; and Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, Leland Yeager, trans. (New York: New York University Press, 1983). 15Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1982), p. 119 16On this topic, see Gary Becker, The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957); Thomas Sowell, Race and Economics (New York: Longman, 1975); idem, The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective (New York: Morrow, 1983). 17That is, opposing it totally, as private property rights violations. However, even in this case there would be no need for a law prohibiting immigration, only one banning trespass in general. 18Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, p. 240, emphasis added. See also Hoppe, Economics and Ethics of Private Property.
|
9
|
c5bfbdb9-2019-04-18T17:32:59Z-00002-000
|
Should students have to wear school uniforms?
|
school uniforms should be allowed Sorry, but you're the one who is against school uniforms. I suggest you start posting some arguments or else you will lose this debate.
|
10
|
fd606b23-2019-04-18T11:34:33Z-00003-000
|
Should any vaccines be required for children?
|
Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory Thanks to Smooosh for his arguments. Time to kick off R3. I"ll start with some overviews. OV1: Concessions and Drops So, right off the bat, Con is conceding the vast majority of my case. He concedes the effectiveness and safety of vaccination, concedes all the numbers I provide (including the thresholds for herd immunity) and concedes the need to have vaccines in society. However, the key issues are the drops. Con drops much of my overview. I"ll get into this more on his contentions, but I must point out that I stipulated two conditions that are required for a mandate: they are both safe and effective, and the risk of remaining unvaccinated far outweighs the risk of vaccination. Con doesn"t challenge this, nor does he accomplish anything along the lines of what I pointed out next. He hasn"t shown that vaccines are markedly different from issues like traffic laws (more on that shortly), and he hasn"t even attempted to compare the harms caused by loss of personal freedoms to the societal good vaccines provide. He has no quantifiable impacts for any of his arguments. Con also drops the text of my plan. He mentions an uncertainty when it comes to enforcement, but it"s quite clear how the case functions: "Failure to vaccinate oneself or one's family results in a fine that scales with income." That means all the penalties of this policy are directed at the parents. If a child is not vaccinated, it"s up to the individual school (as in status quo) to decide whether they can attend. This penalty is solely restricted to not getting vaccinated, so any harms that come from a decision to pay the fine instead would not be subject to legal action. Much as Con calls this "an egregious violation of the constitution", he doesn"t justify this statement. There is no freedom of choice in the Constitution, and the Constitution often weighs societal good over personal freedoms. That"s the reason you can"t shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or refuse to pay your taxes. OV2: Lack of evidence Con"s case is also severely lacking in the source department. He makes a lot of assertions without any evidence to support them. That makes it impossible for him to quantitate his impacts, much less explain how they weigh against mine. Con will have to do a lot more in R3 if he hopes to have any chance in this debate. Onto Con"s contentions. I"ll reorganize these a bit. I. Warranting a Mandate Con is protests my case by arguing that the damage done by measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) is relatively minor compared to other issues. Multiple responses. 1. Con concedes my numbers, which show a clear harm to society in the form of lost life and reduced quality of life for many. He presents no numbers of his own to show that any of the issues he presents outweigh the harms caused by MMR. 2. Even if they did somehow outweigh, we can accept that there are a lot of issues that could and should be resolved for the public good while still resolving this clear problem. Con concedes that MMR are harmful, and that vaccines are effective against them. Any lives saved by increasing the spread of vaccines in the US is sufficient reason all by itself to implement this policy. Con hasn"t presented a reason that MMR doesn"t meet the threshold required to act, whereas I have provided extensive evidence supporting this kind of action. Just because the government cannot feasibly protect individuals from all potential sources of harm does not justify Con"s side of this debate, as this is clearly an instance where the harms can be effectively stemmed and peoples" lives can be saved. 3. Con didn"t respond to my overview, and that"s pretty damning to this argument. The reason we have traffic laws is to prevent a great deal of car accidents that would happen if they did not exist. They are also the reason we require individuals with a car to have a license when they drive, to get the car registered, and to have insurance. Car accidents represent such a significant danger that cars and their owners are highly regulated, and their personal freedoms are abridged to protect others from drivers who would put them at risk because of their poor choices. The same logic applies to vaccines: individuals pose a significant risk to others by carrying around a potentially deadly and easily transmissible disease. They made a poor choice by not receiving a vaccination. In doing so, they were free to harm others who could not make such a choice. Con"s argument may be driving at a slippery slope, but this is one instance where that slope favors my case. Vaccines should be mandatory because that"s what the law demands right now. Con also argues that addressing immigrants would be difficult and require other means than I"ve stated. He"s absolutely right " I provide no means to address an influx of immigrants that will almost certainly bring diseases with them. Neither does Con, nor does this reduce the impact of my arguments. Turn this argument against Con. He"s conceding that there will always be an influx of potential disease vectors into this country. The mandate offers the only possible means by which herd immunity can be achieved (remember how high those numbers are), and therefore the only means of protecting the population from these foreign diseases. There will always be a risk that immigrants will transmit deadly diseases to the population, but only my case effectively dilutes the effect. II. Convincing vs. Mandating Con argues that scientists should convince the masses to vaccinate, rather than having the government require people to do so. My response to this is simple: scientists have been trying their damnedest to clear up the misconceptions surrounding vaccinations, and people still aren"t listening. The evidence of just how successful vaccines have been (particularly the MMR vaccine) is readily available and commonly supported in public service announcements and in the news.[15-18] People are educated by their doctors, their schools, and by scientists in the news and communities.[19-22] Con keeps stating that they could do more, yet he provides no specific ideas beyond just educating them more and better. How, exactly, does Con think this can be accomplished? He doesn"t say. His point that people who are afraid of needles may be convinced is similarly unwarranted. He provides no basis by which people who are so afraid of the process could be convinced. I do agree with Con that there is a disconnect between science and much of society. However, I don"t agree with the unsupported assumption he"s making that it can be solved by simply educating more people. A lot of the people who aren"t getting vaccinated simply don"t accept the scientific findings, no matter how well supported they are.[23] Con will have to provide some means to overcome this barrier. In the meantime, mandating vaccination does two things. First, it ensures that these individuals do not endanger others by getting MMR. Second, it functions as a personal empirical evidence of their safety. Many of these people believe that vaccines are dangerous to their health, even when the evidence is very much against them.[24] Receiving a vaccine provides them with clear evidence that those concerns are overblown. III. Backlash This comes in a couple of different forms. Con asserts that many of the people who do not get vaccinations are antivaxxers who are convinced that the government is out to get them, that religious people will effectively lose their freedom of religion due to their inability to act on their religious beliefs, and that there will be violators who "wreak havoc on the public." I"ll respond to each in turn. Con acknowledges several times that antivaxxers are objectively wrong. He concedes that their behavior (i.e. their unwillingness to get vaccinated) is damaging to other people in society, even deadly to some. Yet he"s justifying a system that continues to leave those people in danger based on these same people. Con is effectively yielding to their demonstrably false concerns. Yet at the same time, Con drops my arguments regarding taxation, drug tests, and traffic laws. All of those have detractors as well. Why are they allowed to exist, despite the backlash? Because they provide a greater societal good than harm, and some subset of the population being upset about it doesn"t detract from that. He talks about "legitimiz[ing] their fears", yet he provides no substantive harms that they would cause. They already don"t get vaccinated, so a continued will not to be vaccinated doesn"t make them any more of a threat. If they pay the fine, then they are providing funds to society to address health issues that result from their injurious behavior. If they get vaccinated and are still upset, they are no longer a risk to those around them. That outweighs their negativity. The religion point looks remarkably similar to the religious freedom point, and it"s no more convincing. The only difference here is that Con points to freedom of religion instead of freedom of choice. However, this would hardly be the first instance where this freedom was abridged; there"s a reason you can"t get married at 12 or engage in human sacrifice, despite the restrictions those laws impose on religion.[25] There is no such thing as absolute freedom, even when it comes to religion. More importantly, Con provides no reason why religious freedom outweighs societal wellbeing. Some people being upset that they aren"t allowed to express their religious beliefs by allowing themselves to get measles seems like a rather petty issue compared to lives lost. 15. https://bit.ly... 16. https://bit.ly... 17. https://bit.ly... 18. https://bit.ly... 19. https://bit.ly... 20. https://theatln.tc... 21. https://bit.ly... 22. https://on.ny.gov... 23. https://bit.ly... 24. https://nyti.ms... 25. https://bit.ly...
|
23
|
a149e8-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00000-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
In the United States, burning the American flag should be legal. KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KfC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC!
|
17
|
21ae906a-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00002-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
Marijuana should be legal. Then again, the debate is not entirely wasteful. Sometimes debates where opponents just FF prove that your arguments are invincible.
|
10
|
3a1faa39-2019-04-18T12:17:34Z-00000-000
|
Should any vaccines be required for children?
|
are vaccines safe Vaccines are known to help us fight diseases, but the immunity they are meant to provide cannot be guaranteed... Let me just quote that '...vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" and contain "unavoidable" viruses, phages and contaminants...' which in basic terms, prove that they are not as hygienic (or clean) as medicines or treatments are normally required to be.
|
49
|
dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00003-000
|
Should body cameras be mandatory for police?
|
Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: "Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.
|
14
|
dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00003-000
|
Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
|
People are Born Gay People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.
|
33
|
e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00136-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems. Humans with vegetarian diets are more likely to suffer from fatigue, apathetic behavior, and a lack of concentration. These could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at the site of someone's profession. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.
|
34
|
ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00002-000
|
Are social networking sites good for our society?
|
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Also, the links my opponent posted lead only to the homepage of their respective sites, I would appreciate it if she would repost the correct ones next round. "Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. " First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these "effects" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none. "Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. " Based on their searches? In context, it would be more apparent what this means, but due to the bad link I'll assume that you are referring to advertisers digging into the personal files of a record, ignoring the user's privacy, in order to attempt to further their business. In actuality, these advertisements are not very effective. According to adweek. com, just 57% of social networking users report clicking on an ad over the past year. In comparison, 79% of all web users report clicking on an ad. Also, adweek. com shows that the online ads on social networks pulled in only 11 percent of users for purchases (as opposed to 23 percent for the web overall). Also, users "who frequents a site for 150 pageviews per session several times per week will get accustomed to the ads, layout, etc… and ignore them (adotas. com). " "In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. " To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is important to know to difference between causation and correlation. Simply put, causation is when there is an action that has an effect of something else, while correlation is an action which is followed by an event/action/whatever. When correlated, the first thing does not necessarily cause the other; the event following the first may just be a coincidence. In context, this means that Barack Obama winning the younger vote does not directly result from social network usage. It could very well be from the age difference between Obama and McCain, or from a completely different cause such as heavier advertising on teen-frequented channels on TV. Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things. "- The first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. " The legality of social networking sites is of no relevance in this debate. "-If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. " There is the same lack of statistics in this contention as well. Without any statistics (like how many lives were changed? how much expansion of one's social horizon is there? ) we cannot validly consider this argument. "Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. " The popularity of social networking websites also has no relevance in this discussion. To support my own contentions. .. My opponent seems to have one thematic problem with my points - that social networking sites aren't at fault, but that the users are at fault. However, it is actually irrelevant whose fault it is. The resolution calls for the impact of the existence of these sites. The fact is, if these sites did not exist, all of these detriments would not exist. Whether or not users have been using the sites as intended is not important; what is important is what is happening. 1. "However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government. )" The reality is that they are not being used correctly, and are not having a positive impact. 2. "- As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. " It may not be used in the right context, but the fact is that it is still used, and it is still having ahuge impact. Here is the source - . http://www.cnn.com... The idea of that statistic is to get a general idea for how much business time is wasted. 3. "-Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [. http://signups.myspace.com......] " Even though they may not be for kids, the reality is that kids *are* going on such sites and *are* being negatively impacted 4. "My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK" "My opponent has given no source to support this scenario" . http://www.isafe.org... . http://safety.lovetoknow.com... I am confused as to specifically which scenario as I mentioned a few. Here is the Megan Meier source: . http://abcnews.go.com... 5. "My opponent said, "potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. " This is the fault of the individual and not the site. " Again the sites are impacting the users, no matter whose fault it is. In summation, I urge a Con ballet because my opponent has not provided any substantive rebuttals to my contentions a
|
21
|
66bd9109-2019-04-18T17:50:38Z-00007-000
|
Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?
|
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. "[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. "[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
|
50
|
62216cd0-2019-04-18T19:09:13Z-00001-000
|
Should everyone get a universal basic income?
|
Universal Health Care Sorry I had to forfeit. I forgot to post my arguments on time \\\ Some 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Because employers increasingly are moving in the direction of providing Wal-Mart-style health coverage by shifting health care costs to employees, America's workers struggle to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments€"if they can afford such coverage at all. Of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, 8.7 million are children. If we have Universal Health care, we will be insuring the lives of 8.7 million children. Not 8.7 million "careless smokers"./// You should get your facts right. What Universal Health care does (or at least the one proposed in America) is it requires people to buy health insurance. It doesn't give it to them for free. You have to pay it either directly or through taxes. The public option might be cheaper, but it still costs money, which some people don't have. "First of all, since YOU are the instigator, you have the burden of proof. You have provided only one source and NO proof and/or examples. You have not state WHAT universal health care system we are debating and when it will be implemented. Therefore this point is invalid. Bye the way voters, debatapedia is the wikipedia of debate, it can be edited by anyone, anywhere, anytime. So if you trust this source, that's your problem." First of all, that is incorrect spelling of by. Second, you have stated only one source, which is pro-healthcare.com. When I visited the website, I saw nothing but a private insurance company's website. My own arguments. 1. Its a socialized medicine. a. Lenin said, "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." The government should not be in control of medicine and should generally not be in too many features of our lives. It is both inefficient and an intrusion on our fundamental rights. b. "Medical resources are rationed in socialized systems so that some people are either denied care or have to wait for it. If a person is "rationed out" of the public health care service (perhaps because the treatment is not considered effective or cost effective enough to warrant intervention) they will be able seek alternative treatment in the private sector. If they cannot afford private care, they may have to go without." c. Government will involve itself in decisions between doctors and patients under a single-payer system. d. We'll be depending too much on the government. What if the government collapses or becomes corrupt? We can't always depend on the government. The government should depend on us. 2. Unfair to physicians a. Does a physician not have the free right of association and contract with patients? Why would physicians be forced to perform free or government-set prices for their labor? Why shouldn't they be able to charge market value for their services? b. Universal health care would deprive physicians of this freedom to charge market-value by imposing government pricing on their services, almost certainly at a discounted rate. c. It is important to recognize that many private physicians have oriented their private practices around a certain level of cash-flow. They have rented office space at a certain level, taken out mortgages at a certain level, and sent their kids to private schools all on the assumption that their existing cash-flow in their private practices would continue into the future. d. It is unfair to suddenly and dramatically curtail this cash-flow and force physicians to re-adjust their lives accordingly. For some, this will be impossible or unbearable. e. With fewer financial incentives, fewer individuals would decide to become physicians in the first place. Talent would be lost from the industry and the quality of doctors and health care would fall. f. Because more people seek care, doctors in a universal health care environment often are over-loaded. Hoping to meet their patients needs, they work over-time. Yet, by doing this, they often burn out and leave their practice early, exacerbating the problem even further. 3. Provides inferior care a. The markets are better at providing quality; same with health care. The markets and competition generally help produce higher quality goods for the least money (the highest value). The same applies to health care. b.Government-mandated procedures would reduce doctor flexibility/quality c. From the article, should the government provide free health care to all Americans, balanced politics.orgd. "Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care." e. According to Reuters in London, one in 10 patients admitted to National Health Service hospitals in Britain is unintentionally harmed and almost a million safety incidents, more than 2,000 of which were fatal, were recorded last year, according to a report on July 6, 2006. Such figures were "terrifying enough", the report by parliament's public accounts committee said, but the reality may be worse because of what it called "substantial under-reporting" of serious incidents and deaths in the NHS f.Most of what determines length and quality of life (excluding human issues such as traffic accidents, homicides...) is genetics and life style choices (eating/exercise). Early detection will certainly weigh heavily on life expectancy for certain diseases, but no amount of "prevention" will stop cancer if you genes are highly susceptible. As most people know, most doctor's visits end with "take this and call me if it doesn't get better" which should hardly be seen as "preventative" of anything. 4. Slows down innovation a. The primary cause of this is a reduction in economic incentives for innovation. In general, the only way that people will take the time, energy, and risks involved with innovation is if there are substantial returns for their investment. This notion underpins the markets and capitalism generally, but is undermined by universal health care. Universal health care, therefore, b. Under investment in single-payer system leads to capacity shortages A lack of willingness to invest in expensive technology leads to shortages in areas such as MRI scanning. Some would argue that only the price mechanism in free market health care can allocate resources efficiently and that political pressure often leads to shortages in socialized systems. 5. delays a. Frequent cancellations are a feature of universal health care systems. A function of "rationing", doctors sometimes have to cancel visits in a single-payer system.Single-payer, universal health care results in long waits for patients Canada is a prime example of this. Many people find themselves waiting for long periods for care in Canada, and sometimes come to the United States to receive faster and higher quality care. b. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote, "rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain." c. Frequent cancellations are a feature of universal health care systems. A function of "rationing", doctors sometimes have to cancel visits in a single-payer system. Sources:"Against Universal Coverage". National Review Online. June 21, 2007 Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon, of the CATO institute. "Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets". Los Angeles Times. April 5th, 2007 Brian Schwartz. "Universal Health Care Is the Wrong Prescription". The Heartland Institute. June 1, 2008 Froma Harrop. "Canada's the wro
|
3
|
339545ea-2019-04-18T17:43:24Z-00003-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
Gay marriage Gay marriage should be allowed
|
33
|
2e8eda57-2019-04-18T20:03:07Z-00005-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
Vegetarianism I am a vegetarian, and in looking at people's profiles I noticed that a lot of people seem to be against vegetarianism. Would someone who is against it please debate me on this and explain why? I don't understand how you can be against people choosing not to eat animals.
|
30
|
f35758f7-2019-04-18T12:59:35Z-00000-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
Conceal to carry I accept. In this debate, I will show that CCW laws cause more harm then good. Rebuttals first. "When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you." Do you have any evidence that concealed carry weapons will reduce attacks on stranded drivers? Is this even a problem to begin with? " If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff." - I don't get this point. You explained a possible counter argument, but failed to rebut it. Extend. "You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go." - As I will point out later, CC will actually make these situations worse. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? "That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places." -This is a problem. The resolution is about CCW laws, but now you make a point about harassment. Please extend. Now onto my arguments. C1: Increased Crime. - A common claim by gun rights activists is that guns will decrease crime, as citizens can stop criminals. This is false. A study done in 2012 by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that states that had "shall carry" laws had a 2% increase in murders and a 9% increase in violent crime [1]. A 1995 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminalogy found that states that passed "shall issue" laws had a 4.5 person per 100,000 increase in the gun homicide rate [2]. So allowing CC is increasing the crime risk. C2: Increased risk. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault then people who don't carry guns [3]. This is more of a rebuttal of the gun rights activists' claims that guns will keep you safe. C3: Restrictions don't stop crime. You state that we should place restrictions on concealed carrying. However, these laws do not work. From 2007-2014, 636 people were murdered by people legally licensed to carry firearms [4]. Even worse, the Violence Policy Center states that CC handlers were arrested for gun offences 81% more in Texas [5]. Plus, just in 2007 Florida, 1400 felons, 128 active domestic violence perpetrators, and 216 people with active warrants held CCPs [6]. So how can you say that restrictions will keep criminals away? C4: Public opinion. You may think guns will make people feel safe. This is false. First, after Illinois passed a law allowing CC, a poll found that over 52% of the population felt less safe [7]. Plus, 79% of college students would not feel safe if people had firearms on campus [8]. Finally, 57% of the US population felt less safe after learning people could conceal guns in public [9]. C5: Criminal reaction. When it is easier for people to carry firearms, it is more likely for criminals to carry guns. 75% of convicted felons carried guns because they fear their victims could be carrying guns [10]. What does this mean? Victims who are not carrying could be at risk of being shot because of others. To conclude, I have shown that CC laws should not exist, due to my 5 contentions. I have proved the CC makes people feel less safe, cause more crime, and restrictions don't keep criminals from carrying guns. I await my opponents response. Sources: [1] http://www.nber.org... [2] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.vpc.org... [5] http://concealedguns.procon.org... [6] http://www.gainesville.com... [7] http://news.siu.edu... [8]https://www.researchgate.net... [9] http://smartgunlaws.org... [10] https://www.ncjrs.gov...
|
19
|
c19aa035-2019-04-18T15:13:51Z-00003-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Gay marriage has to be legalized This should be interesting. BURDEN OF PROOF As the instigator, and the one making the positive claim, Pro has the full burden of proof in this debate. It is her job to demonstrate that gay marriage has to be legalized. She has to show that it's impossible for marriage between two same sex people not to exist. As Con, I don't have to demonstrate why gay marriage can't be legalized. All I have to do is cast doubt on Pro's arguments. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING As my opponent has so eloquently pointed out, we are NOT debating if gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. As she said, my opponent specifically didn't use the word "should" when constructing the debate resolution. She, in fact chose the phrase, "HAS to be legalized". With this in mind, voters should ignore any argument Pro offers that supports the idea that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. Contention One: Pro is unable to offer us any good reason to believe that gay marriage HAS to be legalized. Nothing HAS to happen or exist. Nothing HAS to be made legal or illegal. Murder and rape don't have to be illegal. It may be in societies best collective interests for this to be, but it doesn't HAVE to be so. The very fact that murder hasn't always been illegal proves this. In the case of marriage, there are several other possibilities that could happen instead of gay marriage being legalized. It could remain illegal, for example. Another possibility is for all marriages (gay or straight) to be made illegal. The very fact that gay marriage hasn't always been legal proves that it doesn't HAVE to be legalized. I turn it over now to my opponent.
|
39
|
8c866652-2019-04-18T18:27:57Z-00003-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
We should raise the minmum wage Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, "These are arguments for MW to stay", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait… So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?
|
7
|
9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00002-000
|
Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?
|
In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote To my friend and worthy opponent, glaceau, thank you for challenging me to a debate I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents [Observations] (1) --> he accepted/dropped. America can be used, and you can extend this through until the final round (2) "Felons and ex-felons are both inevitably put into society. Because exfelons are a product of once-felons, the debate should centralize around how felons should be conducted in the status quo and post-resolution" --> Felons are not necessarily always put back into society. People on death row and people serving life sentences are never released --> When my opponent states 'status quo', he is referring to incarceration. This means that he does believe that at least part of this debate is to be discussed on behalf of incarcerated felons (a.k.a. felons). He then goes on to say 'post-resolution'. Therefore, if I can prove why this is wrong, then you can extend my observation throughout the round: --> If you agreed with my opponents logic, that is flawed, but, nonetheless, if you did, here is why it is wrong. If you agree that we must start inferring things from the resolution (i.e things that are not implied), bad things start to happen. For example, he says 'post resolution'. If we have to structure debates on things after the resolution, then you must also have to structure such debates on 'pre resolution'. Before felons committed felonies (rape, murder, kidnap) they were adults. Before they were adults they were children. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to children? Before that, they were babies. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to babies? If you share his reasoning, then you would [Contentions] Cont 1: Retribution "Felons will...perform their actions in a different society or framework that does not impact... -->This goes directly against his opening arguments. He stated, and I agree, that this action of revoking the freedom to vote is in a democratic framework. Anything else, would be simply unresolutional "For example, if a felon was convicted of rape, that does not necessarily mean the government has to rape the felon back." --> Thank you, that is exactly what I argue. Because my opponent agrees with me, you can extend this contention throughout the round. Because the government cannot treat a consitituent as a moral non-entity (i.e rape them), they must furthermore treat them as a political non entity so the punishment fits the crime and it is not cruel and unusual Cont 2: Legal Consistency "First off, the first sentence implies that maintaining political rights and the freedom to vote is of utmost greater magnitude than any of the implied correlative comparisons." --> Nope, not true. I argue that any system is better of under a perfectly consistent system. We must be uniform and fair in the punishment that is dealt to felons, and voting negative better achieves that. I argue that more intrinsic rights are being taken away, and taking away politcal rights are justified through the uniformity of punishment afforded to prisoners "As long as there is a net loss of the right to society, the felon is being shunned or punished for their activity" -->There is no right to society in incarceration. The government puts you in jail BECAUSE you hurt society, and in order to protect society, must restrict all influence of the felon to society, for example, the right to vote Cont 3: Double Standard "By not upholding the right to vote by the majority of the people and practicing social equality (definition of democracy) you are condoning tyrannistic autonomy" --> Because my opponent did not attack my first observation, America can be used. So, I argue, would not letting these less than 2% of people vote, still be upholding the right to vote for the 'majority of the people'? Of couse, 98% is a majority --> The definition of democracy is not social equality. Although it is portrayed here in America, the two terms do not go hand and hand. Also, it is impossible to give social equality through incarceration. There is no punishment without rights being taken away. Besides, doesn't communism have more social equality than, I don't know, democracy? "Not all of what felons convict are 'the most brazen way'. Poor Generalization" --> Yes, they have defied society, the government, and everything society and the government has put forth. Because there are only two types of crime, misdeamenors and felonies, someone who commits a felony would be breaking the law in a more brazen way I will now move on to attack my opponents case Value: Equality --> Justice is implied by the resolution, and higher on a resolutional scale. Because we are dealing with the punishment of felons, we must be just (giving each their due), not necessarily equal. For example, raping somebody does not warrant equal punishment as insider trading does. Thus, justice is the 'higher standard' VC: Democracy --> implied more by the resolution than his value, however, a just government is not always democratic and a democratic govenrment is not always just. Because I have proven his Value Criteria to be categorically untrue, then mine is superior. Maximizing Fairness is vital to a just democracy [Contentions] "Great way to dehumanize them by calling them parasites" --> Do I even dare argue this, for he defends his whole contention with me using an anology. But, because I deserve to win this debate, I shall --> a parasite is anything that impedes a necessary process. While felons are incarcerated, they become a burden to the State. Because they impede the process of the state trying to progress the rest of society, they are, indeed, parasites. "A felony inherently hurts society and therefore government" --> I stand by this argument. Any felony committed causes pain to a member of society (society). The government is also hurt, because one of its constituents was inflicted pain upon. A governments job is to promote hapinness to its constituents, anything on the contrart would then inflict pain Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution
|
9
|
5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00005-000
|
Should students have to wear school uniforms?
|
Students should have to wear school uniforms School that have uniforms have more intelligent and efficient students, because they have uniforms. When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look. If everyone wore the same clothes no one can say theirs is better and no one will be teased of what they wear. When everybody wears the same thing their will be less prejudicism and more nationalism. Kids will get along better and create more social groups. Students spend less time deciding what to wear, because no one will judge what they choose because they're all wearing the same thing. Nobody likes to be mocked when you choose the best clothing you had and then the other laugh and bully him for trying. When theirs the uniform policy kids will be friendlier and smarter because of the intelligent decision the school made for the kids own good.
|
5
|
36edccb7-2019-04-18T13:24:24Z-00004-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
Social Security Social Security should be talked about more, because there are so many candidates running on a platform to cut Social Security. Social Security Benefits 1. There are many ways a married couple can decide to take their Social Security benefits, according to Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. You can't ask Social Security to list them all, so what's the right choice? Munnell says it's hard to beat waiting until you're 70 to begin benefits because the monthly payment is 76 percent higher than it would be if you had started to take benefits at 62 and 32 percent higher than it would be if you claimed at age 66. 2. Doug Carey, who founded the financial planning software firm WealthTrace, says Social Security doesn't see itself as an oddsmaker, but it does require you to bet on your longevity. For example, the break-even point for a person who earned the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $70,000 per year for 35 years is about age 80. If this person waits until 70 to claim Social Security and lives until at least age 90, he'll accumulate almost $162,000 more in benefits than he would if he had claimed at 62. But there's a possibility of losing the bet and getting nothing. 3. If you make it for 10 years, you can collect a Social Security benefit based on up to half of your ex's earnings or on the basis of your own earnings -- whichever is higher. 4. In other words, a widow can begin drawing a survivors benefit on her late husband's Social Security when she is as young as 60, but only at a reduced rate. Then she can choose to leave her own Social Security alone, allowing it to grow in value until her full retirement age -- or even age 70. This works for widowers, too. ------------------------------------ I have provided the benefits of Social Security. Now, I will attack the pension plan that my opponent proposed. This is an interview that gives us an insight on the private pension plan model. SIEGEL: Why, why should that be? What's changed for multi-employer plans and why would they now be more likely to be at risk? ZARROLI: Well, a lot of them are not at risk and, in fact, most of them are doing OK. But there are some that have really stumbled for various complex reasons. Two of the biggest that are in trouble right now are the Teamsters' Central States plan and the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Fund. And part of the problem is that, you know, a union like the Teamsters is aging. There are too many retired workers and there aren't enough active members paying into the fun, but there've also been a lot of policy changes over the years that have made a difference. For instance, employers who were part of these big multi-employer plans have been allowed to extricate themselves from the plan by paying a fee. You know, and as more employers leave the plans then the financial condition of these plans just gets weaker and weaker and that means other employers are reluctant to join because they don't want to take on someone else's problems. SIEGEL: Well, is Congress doing something about these plans and does anyone have any ideas about how to fix them? ZARROLI: Well, Congress is under a lot of pressure right now to do something and, of course, there's some disagreement about what to do. The National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, which represents the trustees of some of these plans, wants to see some big changes in the laws governing pensions. One of the things they want to do is give pension plans that are in really bad shape the ability to renegotiate cuts and retirement payments for workers. You know, as you might imagine unpopular with some of the groups that advocate for retired workers, like the Pension Rights Center, they say, you know, the deficit problem is real but it's being exaggerated. They say cutting pensions should be off the table completely. And then the pension plans come back and say, you know, if you let these plans go bankrupt then retirees will really suffer because their benefits will get cut even more. So there's a lot of disagreement right now about what to do. 1 Million American Pension Plans Could Be Insolvent In 10 Years I don't call that stability. Social Security offers more stability, while American Pension Plans are instable, and are likely to be insolvent in the coming years. . http://www.bankrate.com... . http://www.npr.org...
|
39
|
5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00005-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front." Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities." Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour � before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour � before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a �last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired� scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.
|
14
|
afa49c39-2019-04-18T18:16:31Z-00003-000
|
Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
|
Resolved: US government ought legislate against employment discrimination against sexual orientation My opponent had comp problems, but it's all fixed now. Per request, I'll skip this round, and we'll start the debate in round 3.
|
41
|
4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00003-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. I will start this round by pointing out some misunderstandings. Con misunderstands when he says that PRO takes the "when" as "irrelevant" . The debate is "if the growth continues" not "when does bankruptcy happen" PRO is saying that if present trends continue, the USA will again go into bankruptcy, but PRO is not giving a year or saying what generation it will impact. Con believes that the debt could be paid down. History says no. The national debt has not been reduced since 1957 . http://www.batr.org... Con again misunderstands when he says "It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. " PRO never claimed this . Con then concedes by saying "It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens." Con cites data that supports PRO regarding the inability of SS to loan money after 2033. http://money.cnn.com... Con again misunderstands about "New revenue sources will be unavailable" He cites percentages of EXISTING sources. These are not new sources. Now on to items 4 to 6 #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. In 2016 the effective interest rate on the debt was 2%. The government paid $242,000,000,000 in debt service. What is little known is that the actual interest charge was $432, 000.000.000. In other words the feds kicked about one half of the debt service into the next year. Here is a table on the growing interest cost of the debt.https://www.treasurydirect.gov... 2017 $458,542,287,311.80 2016 $432,649,652,901.12 2015 $402,435,356,075.49 2014 $430,812,121,372.05 2013 $415,688,781,248.40 2012 $359,796,008,919.49 2011 $454,393,280,417.03 2010 $413,954,825,362.17 2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Thus it is apparent that the debt has grown over time. At the same time, the debt service has grown and grown. #5 Default Default is a state where the government fails to meet its financial obligations in the short term. Primarily this happens when the USA fails to pay debt service obligations. "In October 2013"..investors seriously wondered whether the U.S. would actually default on its debt." https://www.thebalance.com... "There are... scenarios under which the United States would default on its debt. "...Interest rates would rise...The dollar would drop, as foreign investors fled the "safe-haven status" of Treasuries. ". The dollar would lose its status as a global world currency".The U.S. government would not be able to pay [obligations]. U.S. Government simply decided that its debt was too high, and simply stopped paying interest " https://www.thebalance.com... #6 Bankruptcy A nation becomes bankrupt when its "lifestyle" exceeds its ability to support that lifestyle. Greece is a good example of this situation, as is Argentina, and to a lesser extent, so is Iceland. http://flatheadbeacon.com... Additionally there are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy http://www.totalbankruptcy.com..., and the USA is on that list. http://247wallst.com... "Although not commonly known, the U.S. has declared bankruptcy five times, since its foundation. Once it could not pay its foreign debts, and four times could it not pay its internal debts. These bankruptcies had resulted from financial crises in the banking sector, the first of which was in 1790, and the last of which was in 1933."https://www.dailysabah.com...
|
49
|
b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00081-000
|
Should body cameras be mandatory for police?
|
Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as "extra crime-fighting eyes". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.
|
45
|
f3722e75-2019-04-18T14:16:26Z-00004-000
|
Should the penny stay in circulation?
|
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.