query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
9 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
28 | b72509d-2019-04-18T11:31:54Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind. 85% of prostitutes had been rapedI wont deny that this is a very high number, but there is also no denial that the rapists will most likely rape prostitutes than non-sexworkers. To make a fair determination of what link prostitution have with rape, we need to research all rape, before and after the legalisation. A few years ago, researchers at UCLA and Baylor university made a not so stunning find: When the Rhode Island legislature inadvertently decriminalized indoor prostitution for a number of years, that state saw a 31 percent decline in reported rapes and a similar decline in cases of gonorrhea. While it is true that most prostitutes have been sexually assaulted, it is also true that all sexual assault is declining when prostitution is legalised. This means that your rape argument was really just taking a small group of people and proving that that very specific group is more likely to get raped, while everyone together have a 31% less chance of getting raped.it is hard for people to retain controlI definitely see this problem, but this is only a problem if it is illegal. If this scenario would take place where prostitution is criminalized, the prostitute would not be able to report it. If it would be legal however, the company/prostitutes could either be regulated in such a way to prevent this, or the company/prostitute could have its own rules that the buyer have to follow. If those regulations/rules are broken, then they can be reported.The Swedish example, trafficking were reduced after the criminalization. But those two incidents are not connected. If we look at the worst and the best countries in human trafficking, there is no connection between the legalisation and trafficking. For example: Russia and China are 2 of the worst countries when it comes to trafficking. But both countries have totally criminalized prostitution. Take Germany where prostitution is legal, they don't have any problems at all with human trafficking. The only way to stop this trafficking in and profiting from the use of women's bodies is for prostitution to be legalized. Legalization will open it up to regulation; and regulation in this case means safety.There are many good aspects of legalising prostitution as well. Such as: Safer conditions for the worker, less unemployment rates, rapes and sexual assaults will actually get reported and so on. If we think that the government should have the right to tell us what we can and cant do with our bodies, who we can and cant have sex with, we are essentially implying that the government own our bodies...https://prostitution.procon.org...http://newsroom.ucla.edu...https://www.theatlantic.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org... |
44 | fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day 1. "I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. "...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. "Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to." Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. "Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well." Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. "For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both." Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. "Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. "EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. "Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic. |
4 | 44bcb84a-2019-04-18T15:24:41Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Compulsory education is a 12+ year jail sentence and the schools are the prisons My opponent highlights that home-schooling is often difficult to organise and not always possible. However, it remains legally possible and so long as it does, going to school is not compulsory and so they cannot be compared to prisons. Pro states that home-schooling is illegal in some countries, saying that: 'The debate was not limited to the United States, [so] I will consider this portion of Con's argument to be limited in scope.' However, many of Pro's comparisons are based on the nature of schools in the United States, so I could equally denounce them as limited in scope. Either we agree to be referring to a particular country, or we agree to refer to the schools of the entire world. If the latter is the case (as is inferred by the title of the debate) then the comparisons Pro makes must be the case for schools worldwide. As school attendance is not compulsory in every country, then they cannot be said to be compulsory in the international scope of this debate. Whilst it is true that parents can be convicted for not providing education to their children, this is not unjust. Preventing your child from being correctly educated is tantamount to child abuse; the UN upholds education as a basic human right.(1) Indeed, compulsory elementary education is a human right. (1) My opponent then highlights parents' reasoning for homeschooling: 'concern for the child's safety and welfare' Education actually improves the long term health of those who are educated. (2) 'child has been a victim of bullying' Bullying is prevalent in adult life as well, it is not an issue exclusive to schools. In fact, early experience of bullying can actually help children develop. (3) 'Desire to protect child's individual identity (students are given identity numbers)' The distribution of identity numbers does not remove a child's individual identity. They are not suddenly a mindless zombie simply because they have been given numbers. Employees are also given identification numbers (4) , so it is not a phenomenon exclusive to prisons and schools. 'punishing policies' Again, only if rules are broken. But this is also prevalent in pretty much all institutions. (5) Deterrence Whilst schools punish pupils for wrongdoing; this is partly a deterrent to incite pupils to behave well (which is no bad thing). The actual threat of going to school is not a deterrent (as is the case with jail) , simply punishments that are within it. Detentions may seem similar to jail sentences, but the latter is normally years in length whilst a detention in around an hour; the difference in timescales renders it a poor comparison. My opponent mentions corporal punishment, but it is banned in most of the USA and all of Europe (6). Using my opponent's wording, I will consider this part of the argument 'limited in scope', as the use of corporal punishment is not the norm in most schools. Rehabilitation It is true that a school is trying to change pupils' attitudes, its called education. I agree that punishments for very minor offences can be over-zealous, but the reason that stories such as in Pro's source are sensationalised is that they are anomalous, in most cases discipline increases the standard of education. And, finally, pupils are not prevented from urinating. Protection of society Universal education does the opposite of maintaining class barriers, it allows people at the bottom of society to be successful. Compulsory education is not a prison, it is the way that children can escape the prison of poverty. Social development My opponent states that parents want to protect their children from 'negative socialisation' such as gossiping and meanness. However, these facets of 'negative socialisation' are abundant in adult life, school is necessary to provide the environment where children can learn how to cope with all aspects of socialisation, both positive and negative. Home-schooling can actually leave children unprepared socially for adult life (7). Vocational development Specific courses for vocations come later in adolescence, after pupils are taught the basic academia needed for all walks of life. Whilst jails do offer vocational courses, this is only because jails have educative facilities and not because schools are similar to jails. Millions of Americans work in sweatshops for little money, but this is hardly the fault of compulsory education. They would be even less employable if they were not properly educated. Cognitive development I agree that most people doubt that graduates are ready for the workplace, but if compulsory education was not instigated then they would be even less ready. Emotional development The suffering emotional health of pupils is a necessary evil, as it were, because emotional challenges are required for the emotional development of children. A child who is constantly shielded from emotional rigour whilst growing up will be unprepared for the harsh adult world. Essential Differences "School for 12 years, college for 4 years or more...then you work until you die. Great." Life is what you make it, pessimists may take the above attitude but the truth is that anyone can do anything (within reason). Compulsory education increases the possibilities of one's life. I would argue that most students dislike school currently because 1) they are immature and 2) they take education for granted. Child activists like Malala Yousafzai have risked death to advocate compulsory education (8), which shows that if children were more mature and were aware of its value, they would want to go to school. 'prisoners can be temporarily released from jail.' Yes, but occasions of this are not the norm, whereas school attendance is generally for a limited time of the day. ' Compulsory education requires outside permission and regulation' I'm not quite sure what my opponent means when he states this. ' Traditional education is not compulsory...it is practical and interactive' There is no reason to suggest that compulsory education cannot be practical and interactive. 'the child's crime is apparently free will and independent thought. Also, sentences can be opinions or decisions and the attendees often state they feel like school is a jail. ' The child is not punished for free will or independent thought, so long as they do not break the rules. This is the same in normal society. Also, children are known to make exaggerated claims, so them claiming that a school is like jail is hardly veridical evidence. Also none of them actually know what jail is like, so they cannot make an informed comparison. Whilst freedom is a right, children ought to be raised in accordance to what is best for them even if they do not appreciate it at the time. This is the case for compulsory education; few pupils enjoyed compulsory education at the time, but pretty much all adults accept that is a necessary institution. If children could opt out of education then they would probably enjoy it at first, but they would come to understand the importance of compulsory education and regret leaving it. We, as adults, have a duty to prevent children from making disastrous decisions, even if this limits their freedom to some extent. 'education, eating and recreation can be mutually inclusive.' Not if we want efficient education. Eating whilst being taught is a distraction, and it is much harder to teach a core subject like maths in a recreational sense. keeping children inside one room five days a week is akin to breaking a horse..' The analogy does not work because horses are not naturally part of a society, breaking them brings them into society. However, humans, educated or uneducated, are all part of the society so there is no 'breaking' involved. The evidential fact is that education improves quality of life and so we should educate children. 'the lunch lady took my lunch away and threw it in the garbage." My opponent makes this example, but my point that few schools would do this remains standing because he has not given evidence to suggest that this was not an isolated incident. ' Pat downs by guards,walking in line and uniforms are methods to strip dignity,independence, and free will from attendees -similar to prisoners.' No, these are not used to strip dignity, they are used for pragmatic or security reasons. If they do strip dignity then this a mere subjective side-effect. I've been forced to wear a uniform and walk in line, but my dignity hasn't been 'stripped'. My opponent mentions the existence of a school to prison pipeline, but this is only the case where schools are mismanaged, there is nothing innate about compulsory education that leads to incarceration in prison, any such pipeline is a result from faulty education policy and not the actual concept of compulsory education. To conclude, compulsory education has some similarities with prison, but so do other institutions such as hospitals and offices. They are not similar enough to be metaphorically similar as the title of the debate asserts. (1)http://www.un.org... (2)http://www.nber.org... (3)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)https://www.gov.uk... (6)http://en.wikipedia.org... (7)http://www.middleschool.net... (8)http://www.bbc.co.uk... |
27 | 557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished every single person I debate forfeits quite stupid if I may say so. If anyone wants to actually have a debate with me send me a message. thanks. |
10 | e30a08a3-2019-04-18T19:14:34Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. This is an Lincoln-Douglass debate November/December topic and this debate should be done just like the LD debate format except the CON goes last and there is no cross-examination session for questioning. "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong" Because I agree with Jeremy Bentham (Philosopher and activist 1748-1832), I affirm the resolution which states: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. For further clarification I offer the following definitions that I am using for this debate round. Public health concerns- the approach to health that is concerned with the safety of the community as a whole. Justify- to show or have had a legally sufficient reason or cause. Compulsory immunization- vaccinations, to increase immunity, reasonably required or compelled by law. I will be valuing SOCIETAL WELFARE, which is paramount when considering the well being of the community as a whole. This value relates to the resolution because the well being of the community is dependent upon the society to decide, what the best action is to take when deciding society vs. the individual. You will see that with societal welfare, the greatest number ought to be valued more than the minority. My criterion will be that of RULE UTILITARIANISM developed my John Stuart Mill. It establishes moral rules and sets forth the role of the government. With this there is one principle that explains where the restriction of liberty is justified. Harms principle: The legitimate reason for social restriction is to prevent a person from harming others. I would classify the action, choosing to be immunized or not, other-regarding. This type of action involves any other individual in a society and can be subject to restriction if necessary. It also states you may protect people against harms that violate their rights. This is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This relates to the resolution and achieves my value in many ways. If you don't get immunized during a public health concern and it has a risk of affect on any individual of a society then it should be required by law to be immunized. Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations prevent the spread of disease in a society. A quote on what immunizations do from cdc.gov states "If a child is not vaccinated and is exposed to a disease germ, the child's body may not be strong enough to fight the disease. Before vaccines, many children died from diseases that vaccines now prevent, such as whooping cough, measles, and polio. Those same germs exist today, but babies are now protected by vaccines so we do not see these diseases as often." This not only explains the importance of immunization during childhood but explains the importance of preparing each individual for a disease, and as to why we don't see these diseases often, it's because the disease is prevented from being spread easily. If children and any other individual weren't immunized for a disease, especially during a public health concern,then the disease could spread faster and cause more problems for our society. The immunizations prevent spread and it justifies compulsory immunization. Contention 2: Compulsory immunizations are the greatest good for all individuals' safety. A court case in western district of Arkansas, McCarthy vs. Boozman, that I found on vaccinesafety.edu states "It has long been set that individual rights must be subordinated to the compelling state interest of protecting society against the spread of disease." That is the constitutionality of The United States, an example of a legitimate society. Individuals are immunized to receive a small portion a small portion of the disease, not enough to cause the actual disease, but enough to cause the immune system to create antibodies. It's proved to grant safety to society to receive immunizations during a public health concern and it is for the individuals' best interest to decrease their risk of catching that disease they're immunized for. An individual shouldn't have a right, to not be immunized, when it can effect others. To promote societal welfare, the greatest good for the greatest number. Compulsory immunizations are acceptable, necessary, and justified, when deciding for the safety of not only the society, but the individuals. Contention 3: Compulsory immunizations are justified and do effect others of whether or not you get immunized. Schools require compulsory immunization, why would they if it didn't effect others. A quote, also taken from cdc.gov states "immunizing individual children also helps to protect the health of our community, especially those who are not immunized. People who are not immunized include those who are too young to be vaccinated, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and those who cannot make an adequate response to vaccination. Also protected, therefore, are people who received a vaccine, but who have not developed immunity. In addition, people who are sick will be less likely, to be exposed to disease germs that can be passed around by unvaccinated children. immunizations also slows down or stops disease outbreaks." To further be explained, the people not immunized are either too young , have a medical issue, or have failed to create antibodies and so they can't receive the immunization and are exempt from compulsory immunization. If you can receive the immunization and don't do it, that gives you a higher risk of being exposed to the disease and therefore gives the people who can't be immunized a higher risk of being exposed to the disease as well. To worry about the society, at the same time, worries about the individuals, That is why societal welfare is the best value to consider in this debate. Along with my criterion, rule utilitarianism, the society has a justified reason for compulsory immunization, especially during a public health concern. |
44 | d1171eb8-2019-04-18T16:23:02Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | should day time television be uncensored As Americans we have the free press and freedom of speech. These rules, by which we stand, should apply to television. |
49 | dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00004-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see "Top 20 Drunks" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted |
31 | 4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00004-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Fat people live longer than skinny people. Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines "fat" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that "fat" means " having more body fat than is optimally healthy". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Mar�a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away. |
3 | 1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00006-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century. |
9 | ca052f96-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Should kids have to wear uniform in School My Arguments1. Uniforms may increase a student's self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion".2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class.3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying.4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus.5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved.School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that "various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. " [1]Contentions"kids shouldnt have to wear uniforms because uniforms are expensive especially to unfornate families"Uniforms are actually relatively inexpensive and the benefits it gives to the students of the school far outweighs that it may cost more than poor parents would like to spend. In addition, it eliminates bullying to a kid who probably would have been wearing ratty clothes compared to others. "parents have to spend more money on buying uniform just for kids to wear it to one place."Uniforms are nessecarily just for one place to wear. You can wear it anytime, after all its clothes. [1] http://www.unr.edu... |
24 | 5bd759df-2019-04-18T11:12:13Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least When the top tax rate was 90$ in the 50s the economy was fine and very capitlaist, And the distribution of wealth was much less skewed and the middle clas on much stronger gorund. . $90 is not the same as 90%, As you stated above. The economy was also CAPITALIST. Or should we re lelgalize slavery because we couldnt eliminate it completely. . Did I say to legalize everything, Or keep it like it is? -There are hard working people who deserve to be rich. . . Why should it be taken away from them? -There are poor and not hard working people, Why should money be given to them? I'm not saying our country is in the best shape (actually, The economy is boosting now that Trump is president) but I am saying that taxing the rich isn't going to solve the problem! |
46 | f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00000-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. But with that said, let's get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro's arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of "principle" and "concept. " Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:"A general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. "Also by the OED, concept is defined as: "An abstract idea"However, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because "debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. " But, given the definitions of "principle" and "concept" this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if "the details are not established. " As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as "an abstract idea". Therefore, Pro's rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro's arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified – where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a "highly transparent and democratic manner" and argues that this is an "unachieved goal for decades" and that the whole point of government is "built around the concept of being transparent and democratic. " This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro's freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can't reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept – merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can't be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US's internet being similar to China's, even invoking Negri's statement that "Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day. " Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because – as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality – it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to "philosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. " However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am "looking for a debate on economics" as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is "that content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential". As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn't really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because "it is common business practice". However, this doesn't lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP's pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP's actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that "with net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. " Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay's observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP's method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro's logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro's Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro's arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe's internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated. |
22 | da24f625-2019-04-18T18:45:20Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | The existence of free will as proposed by the bible (Cont.debate) Actually, I feel I need to clarify my statements. I said that God knows what will happen in the future, without error. God knows what will happen and knows with accuracy, but it doesn't mean things must happen that way. In other words, just because God knows the future doesn't mean it's the only possible outcome. It will happen that way, but it doesn't mean that it must. It could have happened another way, but if it did then God would know. I hope this makes it more clear. There are punishments for sins, and there are rewards for doing good. If we sin and die in our sins, we will go to Hell for eternity. Every person is on this path. It is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). However, God does not force anyone to love Him or to repent. If He did, then He would be choosing whom to save and whom to let suffer eternally in Hell. God knows who will believe in Him and who won't, but He doesn't force anyone to choose salvation. The choice is ultimately ours to make. So no, while every choice comes with a reward or punishment, not every choice comes with the same outcome. There is still nothing conflicting in my statements. Humans are inherently moral and rational creatures, but not every accepts the same standard of morality. While my parents taught me to respect the Bible and God's morality, an atheist will teach their kids not to believe in a god because to them, it is foolish. We may have certain morals in common (for instance, a Christian an atheist will both believe that murder is wrong), but a Christian will believe that fornication is wrong whereas an atheist will see nothing wrong with it. We all have the ability to reason (to decide for ourselves that path our lives should take), and we all have an inherent moral code (commonly referred to as a "conscience"). You can inherit morality from places other than your parents. For instance, an atheist who comes to faith in Christ will draw their morality from the Scriptures. Also, if no parents are around, there is always the legal guardian, other family members, or friends. Everyone gets their morality from somewhere, and even if they don't have a good example of morality in their lives, everyone still has the inherent ability to know whether something is right or not. You are seeing conflicts in my statements where there are none. Free choice has nothing to do with morality. Even someone with no moral compass at all still has the freedom to choose their actions. But morality can affect how you choose. For instance, a happily married man who doesn't believe adultery is wrong may go out and sleep with another woman. Or he may still choose to be faithful to his wife because he has no desire to sleep with other women. Whereas a Christian should never decide to sleep with another woman because adultery is a sin, but there are still Christians who do it. Morality affects your decisions to act on your free will, but it has no bearing on free will in and of itself. Morality is not required to make a free choice. I agree that there is huge injustice in this world. But that doesn't negate free will. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. It's just a part of life. A very unfortunate part of life. This still doesn't negate free will. One can have the will to do something, even if their means prevent it. I am saying that there may be times in which our freedom to choose is taken away from us, but this doesn't mean the freedom to choose does not exist. We don't have to be completely free in every choice we make in order for free will to exist. Sometimes our means prevent us from doing or having what we want to have, and sometimes we are forced or coerced into making a choice we would not have made otherwise. But this doesn't mean that we are never free to choose anything. As this is our final round, I have responded to my opponent's objections and didn't add any new arguments to the mix. I believe I have shown that we do indeed have free will, even with the Christian God in the equation. There may be times when we can't choose because our means prevent it, or that we are forced or coerced into making a choice we would not have made otherwise, but the person taking our choice away had the choice of whether to take our choice away or not. If we find ourselves in a situation in which we really have no choice, this does not mean that we are never free to choose. Again, I thank the Instigator for issuing this challenge and the reader for your consideration in this matter. |
50 | 4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future. |
40 | a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death penalty should be supported. I am disappointed that nargiz_gab has forfeited this round.However, I would like to present my argument for why the death penalty ought not be supported and to do so I would like to explore the reasons that the UN's General Assembly gave in support for its 2008 moratorium on the death penalty (UN resolution 62/149).I quote:"Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable." [1]The reasons the UN gives in support against the death penalty are thus:a) That the death penalty undermines human dignity.b) That not using the death penalty would strengthen human rights.c) That the deterrent value of the death penalty is inconclusive.d) That any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.The thrust of my argument will rest on d), that any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.We, as humans, are liable to err (we're not omniscient) and therefore miscarriages of justice will occur. We are, in a word, fallible. Now, if the death penalty was not instituted and an alternative, say, life imprisonment was instituted instead, then we allow ourselves an opportunity to rectify any miscarriages of justice that do occur. What good is it to the innocent person, who was wrongly executed, to know that a court, upon further examination of existing or even new evidence, found that person posthumously not guilty? It is, therefore, irreparable since the, later found, innocent person is already dead.Consequently, however expedient the death penalty may be, we ought not, on the principle that humans are liable to err, support the death penalty since miscarriages of justice will occur and that any miscarriage of justice using the death penalty, by definition, is irreversible and irreparable.I eagerly await nargiz_gab's response.---[1] United Nation's General Assembly Resolution 62/149, http://www.un.org... |
33 | ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. This rule was stated in the terms of the debate: "- A forfeit is an automatic loss". Therefore, my opponent's potential to receive favorable votes should be nullified completely regardless of any arguments that are posted by them. |
4 | 4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00008-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment in schools. Thank you for the debate. I will offer an opinion on corporal punishment in school which supports its us |
36 | 331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is golf a sport Well apparently, anything Pro states is considered fact, regardless of the lack of evidence to support his claims.I too wish to possess such entitlement, but unfortunately I am not capable of making such declarations. I'll leave this up to the voters to decide if they choose to adopt Pro's view of factuality as their own. |
37 | 337d5b0b-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14 I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons. |
41 | 574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00000-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: "A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt." Chapter 13: "U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years." Chapter 11: "a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts." http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: "It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks." It is not "free money". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn"t "created" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you"re right. It"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I"d appreciate it if you didn"t insult my intelligence. "With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car." No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called "Exempt Property". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I"ve seen it before. It"s not worth it. |
27 | 45636d0a-2019-04-18T17:53:14Z-00008-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control should be administered So, here is my argument: Guns are made to kill the largest amount of people in the smallest amount of time. This contradicts peace, which we should protect. Therefore, this house would ban guns. Guns cause a lot of deaths in the world. 1. It is very easy to pull a trigger to murder or commit suicide, far easier than using a knife or a rope. 2. Some accidents occur when children think that their parents' guns are toys and shoot their friends. 3. When a gun is misfired, it can cause serious injury or even death. There are lots of other problems as well. Guns teach children to accept violence from an early age. They think that it is no big deal to own a gun, which can kill. They also make it easier for criminals to die when being pursued. True, they are bad and go against the law, but it is a life nevertheless. |
28 | 35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Thank you, Acetraveler, for taking this debate. I have read other debates you have had, and I am sure that you will provide me with a good challenge, which is definitely something that I look forward to. I understand you are not from the USA, however I can only argue about situations in the US to support my resolution. First I will refute your arguments then I will expand my own arguments. "First, basically, governments have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law The regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people.." If I understand this argument, basically you're asserting that the collective wellbeing of the many trumps the individual rights in question. I will agree that the collective well being is important, but I argue that it is not MORE important than individual rights. My arguments on this ground are 1)There is no evidence presented here that legal prostitution IN THE UNITED STATES is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. 2)The United States was founded on the ideals that individuals have the right to protection from unjust and arbitrary laws that were enacted for the purpose of bettering the majority of society at that time (the stamp tax, sugar tax etc. Were enacted without allowing the taxed to have adequate representation in Parliament, thus violating the rights of individuals in the colonies in order to support the well being of the larger English society in Brittan.) For further examples, a quick look at our bill of rights shows that, of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, every one of them, in one way or another, upholds the tenant that individual rights are paramount. "Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate." Almost anything can be twisted to harm the dignity of those involved in it. This does not invalidate the rights of the individual to choose to participate in those activities. Let me give an example of how the government actively has chosen NOT to uphold the dignity of women, because that is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... Shows that the courts in the United States have ruled, if a woman is in public, and she wears a dress, she has no right to view her body as 'private' and her image can be captured, and distributed without her permission, or knowledge. We should all be able to agree that this creates a situation of indignity for women in general. I mention this not to debate whether these laws are just or not, but to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity, when the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws. Obviously, women that choose not to be objects of sexual gratification have no right to expect that choice to be honored, while the laws on prostitution also invalidate a woman's right to choose under what circumstances her body will be used for gratification. Further I will ask a question in regards to this argument. Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law. "Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it." I understand this to mean that you assert that prostitution harms marriage by promoting otherwise faithful men to seek out sex with another partner. I disagree. Cheaters are cheaters and they will cheat, whether they are paying for the chance to cheat, or not. Liars are liars and they will lie. The lack of legal prostitution does not stop infidelity. Please see the following web site for some statistics of cheating on spouses in the US. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage? I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society. "in addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sexes. " Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org...... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. Every one of the arguments at that website has a correlating response. I hold that the responses are clear and accurate and the rebuttals to your arguments at idebate.org are valid. However, the con stance presented does not show that the reason these laws were allowed to exist in the first place were for any reason other than morals (an extension of religious belief), The justifications I read here for the continuation of these laws seems to be primarily, "even if we made it legal and regulated it, some would still work outside of the law." This is of course an oversimplification of the many many arguments presented, but the over feel of the arguments was such. My argument to this would be that I am not against licensure of prostitutes, regulations of the profession, or high penalties for those that operate outside the bounds of those regulations. Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this. That in no way rebuts my resolution. |
8 | 670240e1-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal. >>> Women who do abortion face a number of possible complications including... +++ No. I am right. You are exaggerating on your list of harmful effects. The four you mentioned that were correct were excessive bleeding, infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes, damage to the uterus or cervix, and emotional or psychological distress. Emotional distress is an expected effect that is the woman's choice. And a kid, especially an unwanted one will cause a lot more distress, than an abortion. Bleeding is an effect of any surgery. The other two are possible effects that are unfortunate, but rare. And the women are warned of these effects beforehand. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... >>> Breast cancer risk +++ This is tremendously flawed. Please show sources. And a small breast cancer risk is no reason to have a kid, especially if you were raped or would die from the birth. >>> Isn't death a risk for every pregnancy? Are you now saying we shouldn't have children? +++ Some women are known to be prone to death before the birth. Why would these women be forced to die? Are you, morally, going to let a woman kill herself for a bunch of embryos that nobody knows or cares about? No. >>> It is ironic to state that it is immoral to force women to die from a pre-known death for a stranger because a lot of these people do not have families. +++ How dare you! You are really reaching here. Many women get pregnant during marriage and don't want the child because they will die because of it. Some of the Supreme Court justices during Roe vs. Wade solely based their votes off of this. Sure, some teenagers get abortions, which is a great option, but some of those girls will die from the birth and are known in advance of their deaths. Even they should not be killed. To force a woman to kill herself is immoral. >>> She will not necessarily die because she gives birth but the child WILL. +++ YES, SHE WILL! There are women whose bodies can no longer give birth. If they get an abortion they can live. If they don't they will die for the sake of the child who cost the life of a loved one. This baby doesn't deserve to be born without a mother. And the families don't deserve to loose the mother, wife, daughter, and friend. >>> The abortion option. +++ This is unfair. How can you suggest that a woman carry around a baby for 9 months while being sick and miserable? Especially if she was raped. A raped woman is victim enough. Do not punish her more with 9 months of torture only to give up a baby that she cannot take care of. And what about the women who are known to die after birth? Are you going to let them die? You have yet to explain for them. >>> No proof of prostitution argument. +++ My argument is defensive. I don't need to support it if you can't. Argument dropped. >>> What! How do you rationalize this? Prostitution often means cheating on your wife or girlfriend and it spreads diseases! +++ That's a different debate. Prostitution does not hurt anybody. Adultery is the crime. If the prostitute is not spreading disease, it is consentual sex and should not be illegal. Victimless crimes cost a lot of money to enforce for no reason. >>> Prostitutes will get raped. +++ How can somebody who is being paid to have sex be raped by their client? >>> New fetuses are human! No their not. A rock can not feel, think or do much of anything. Much like a fetus. You can destroy a rock legally. Like you can abort a fetus legally. If the thing is not human, don't call it human. Scientists don't claim a fetus to be a human until 26 weeks. If science isn't good enough proof for you...nothing is. >>> Girls who get abortions may commit suicide. +++ It's their decision to get the abortion and they don't commit suicide that often. And girls who are pregnant as teenagers probably have other, bigger problems in their life. You can't say this is related. >>> Why should the child be punished by rape? +++ How dare you! This is an outlandish statement. The child is not being punished. There is no child! Not until 26 weeks when abortions are typically illegal. If a woman is raped she shouldn't have to take care of a kid for the rest of her life from a man she probably doesn't even know. If a teenage girl is raped, she should not have to ruin her life, which is statistically more likely. >>> Women make laws and some are pro-life. +++ I didn't say I was using the sexist argument. You just imposed it on me. But it is legitimate. Because there are women who are wrong. There are people with differing opinions in every demographic. Most women will think abortion bans are unfair. The ones who have read the facts anyway. 1. The government does not, and should not have the right to control a woman's body. >>> Yet isn't the child a "body." The government would be controlling the child's body in this instance. +++ No! Science says the child is not a body or a person for 26 weeks. If a woman is raped she should not be forced to carry around a baby for any amount of time. And the government has no right to tell either way. 2. "Back alley" abortions were very common in times when abortion was legal. These abortions included women sticking hangars into their bodies to kill their fetuses. This will continue if abortion is criminalized. >>> Back alley abortions are less common. +++ Back alley abortions were less common, but they happened. This often killed the woman and the child? Is this a reasonable solution? No. 3. A child that is unwanted will be neglected. GOD wants mothers to want their babies. >>> this violates God's rule of freewill. A mother cannot be forced to love her child. +++ No. God is not forcing anyone to love the kid. He is giving them the option. It is the exact opposite. God is hoping they will love their babies and is giving them the boost. 4. Neglected children will be the inevitable result. They are a lot more likely to become criminals. >>> Can you prove this? Adopted kids. http://search.yahoo.com... Adopted kids are often neglected as well. More often than not. 5. One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. >>> Yes and this would be having sex before marriage. It has nothing to do with the topic. +++ You cannot force the Christian religion on all Americans. It is legal to have sex before marriage and should not be punishable.. And those who are raped have no choice. Some fathers even force their child to have the rape-result baby. 6. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person. >>> (website) +++ I used science. 26 weeks. Your turn. 7. Some women are raped. Should they be forced to keep the rapist's baby and take care of it? >>> Approximately only 1% percent of all abortions are attributed to rape and incest. + I don't think this is true. But even one of these cases is horrible and so immoral. 8. Women can die from pregnancy and birth. Should these women be killed? >>> This was a risk for EVERY WOMAN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME! +++ Some women are more prone to die or certain to die from birth. 9. Abortion bans have been ruled unconstitutional because they are detremental to women's health. We have the right to life. The government cannot force a woman to have herself killed. >>> Arguments above should suffice. It's a risk every woman takes. +++ No. It's not. 1. Define "fully developed." +++ Able to feel and think, physically too. 2. Explain why adoption or foster care is wrong. +++ Raped women should not be punished with 9 months of carrying a baby. Some women are certain to die from birth. 3. Is there any other reasons why abortion is right despite the fact you think it should be a woman's choice? +++ Rape, women who will die, teenagers lives, etc. SOME WOMEN ARE CERTAIN TO DIE! ONLY ILLEGAL ABORTIONS KILL WOMEN |
38 | f5f598f3-2019-04-18T15:31:37Z-00002-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Drug Legalization (Marijuana) Rebuttal 1: Gateway Drug Time magazine has a wonderful article on this which I will link and quote throughout this rebuttal. My opponent claims that marijuana is a gateway drug well yes and no. Imagine this, someone who uses a computer is probably 1000x more likely to become a hacker than someone who never touches a computer. Is it the computers fault that the person took steps and made their OWN choices to go down a worse road? No of course not! The same applies to marijuana. My opponent also states in his Section 1 argument that it is not marijuana but people who choose to go to harder drugs. "It's not the drug itself that causes people to move on to worse drugs but it's the people that can't reach that high that marijuana gives them anymore." Now I will quote some points that are from people/organizations who are quite significantly more intelligent than myself. "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana " usually before they are of legal age. In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs[1]." The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. "Since then, numerous other studies have failed to support the gateway idea. Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot " compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin[1]." "Holland began liberalizing its marijuana laws in part to close this particular gateway " and indeed now the country has slightly fewer young pot-smokers who move on to harder drugs compared with other nations, including the U.S. A 2010 Rand Institute report titled "What Can We Learn from the Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop Experience?" found that there was "some evidence" for a "weakened gateway" in The Netherlands, and concluded that the data "clearly challenge any claim that the Dutch have strengthened the gateway to hard drug use."[1]" Rebuttal and 1st argument: Health factors. The argument of marijuana and its effects on the respiratory system can be quite easily fixed and is avoided many times by people who are against legalization. There are many alternatives including; vaporizers, medicated food, and medicated oils, and pills containing marijuana (medicated meaning containing marijuana). The best argument against the argument on the damage to the lungs is a 20 year study and I can sum it up no better than marijuana smokers lungs actually increased in ability after smoking for 20 years crazy thought right? Well apparently not as crazy as you might have thought. "Marijuana does not impair lung function"at least not in the doses inhaled by the majority of users, according to the largest and longest study ever to consider the issue, which was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association[2]." "Researchers working on a long-term study of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults or CARDIA study) tested the lung function of 5115 young adults over the course of 20 years, starting in 1985 when they were aged 18 to 30[2]." "The study was "well conducted" and is "essentially confirmatory of the findings from several previous studies that have examined the association between marijuana smoking and lung function," says Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at UCLA and a leading scientist in the area. He was not associated with the new research. "The major strengths of this study are that it included a far larger number of subjects followed for longer than any of these previous studies," he adds[2]." "While tobacco smokers showed the expected drop in lung function over time, the new research found that marijuana smoke had unexpected and apparently positive effects. Low to moderate users actually showed increased lung capacity compared to non smokers on two tests, known as FEV1 and FVC. FEV1 is the amount of air someone breathes out in the first second after taking the deepest possible breath; FVC is the total volume of air exhaled after the deepest inhalation[2]." "That was a bit of a surprise, says Pletcher, since "There are clearly adverse effects from tobacco use and marijuana smoke has a lot of the same constituents as tobacco smoke does so we thought it might have some of the same harmful effects. It"s a weird effect to see and we couldn't make it go away," he adds, explaining that the researchers used statistical models to look for errors or other factors that could explain the apparent benefit and did not find them[2]." IQ: The link between diminishing IQ scores and pot have been severely challenged against the study that was conducted with just (38) heavy users. "A 2012 Duke University study made international headlines when it purported to find a link between heavy marijuana use and IQ decline among teenagers. Other researchers questioned the findings almost immediately: Columbia University's Carl Hart noted the very small sample of heavy users (38) in the study, leading him to question how generalizable the results were. Then, a follow-up study published 6 months later in the same journal found that the Duke paper failed to account for a number of confounding factors: "Although it would be too strong to say that the results have been discredited, the methodology is flawed and the causal inference drawn from the results premature," it concluded[3]." Coordination, problem solving, thinking, perceptions, and mood are all only during the high as studies are inconclusive on long lasting effects. Now that we have shown that the negatives are not so negative lets look at some benefits of marijuana use. 1.It can be used to treat Glaucoma. 2.It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health. 3.It can help control epileptic seizures. 4.It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome. 5.A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading. 6.It may decrease anxiety. 7.THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease. 8.The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis. 9.Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too. 10.Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too. 11.It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. 12.Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases. 13.It relieves arthritis discomfort.R32;R32; 14.It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism. 15.It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder. 16.While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain. 17.Marijuana might be able to eliminate Crohn's diseases. 18.Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease. 19.Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD. 20.Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke. 21.It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma. 22.It can help eliminate nightmares. 23.Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite. 24.Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. [4] and one of the biggest can you tell me how many recorded death there are from marijuana? 0 would be the correct answer. The benefits greatly outweigh. |
43 | aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00003-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water is harmful In response to my opponents challenge. "Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. " "The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water."(1) "The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. " (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org... |
17 | 774f72e6-2019-04-18T19:28:26Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | End the War on Drugs... This will be my final rebuttal. I would like to thank my opponent once more for what has been a very enjoyable debate. I accept my opponent's apology for his misunderstanding, and withdraw my accusation. "Then my opponent concedes that the drugs he wishes to legalize and make freely available to the public will, to the person, cause great injury for no medicinal purpose. " Just like alcohol and tobacco. Other drugs are more dangerous, yes, but just like cocaine and heroin, alcohol and tobacco are purely recreational substances which cause damage and addiction. Neither have any medicinal benefits that cannot be provided in safer ways. I find this double standard to be intellectually dishonest. "The illegal drug users now are limited because there are few of them. Legalizing all illicit drugs will absolutely cause the number of addicts to skyrocket. More users means more addicts, these illegal drugs are addictive by their very nature and in order to even be effective recreationally, an amount that causes dependence and addiction needs to be taken. This means that every recreational drug user will 100% become a burden on the health care system. " More unsubstantiated claims and unfounded assertions. My opponent is hell-bent on portraying the legalization of drugs as a doomsday scenario, in which people who have never touched drugs before in their lives will become hard drug users en masse. Certainly, numbers would increase, but a few more drug addicts is a fair price to pay for the eradication of the social problems caused by the failed War on Drugs. My opponent has still failed to address these benefits. Furthermore, illegality makes these substances more profitable, and thus more prolific. "In addition, the legalization of these drugs would lead to a substantial number of potentially fatal drug-drug interactions between regular prescription drugs. One does not even have to be an addict, only on a certain medication or dietary supplement to receive health problems. " Alcohol and sleeping pills, anyone? You certainly don't need cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy to encounter this sort of problem. "To already classify alcohol and tobacco as "very dangerous" would leave few applicable descriptions for the three drugs my opponent wishes to legalize. Compared to alcohol and tobacco, the drugs cocaine, heroine, and ecstasy are far, FAR more deadly. The quantities in which alcohol and nicotine would cause fatality is astronomical in comparison to that of the three illegal drugs, there is absolutely no comparison. Users of alcohol and nicotine can be relatively healthy for decades and decades, but those who use cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy will begin suffering intensely in less than a year. " I don't see why you keep pushing this spiel about the health problems that illegal drugs cause. Nobody here is trying to argue that drugs are good for you. "There are plenty of safe ways to enjoy alcohol and tobacco, but for those three drugs I mentioned? The recreational aspect is necessarily linked with all the properties that are destructive to health. In addition, those who drink casually or smoke casually do not necessarily get addicted. To make cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy use anything remotely definable as a "habit" is suicide. " My previous statement, which you are responding to ("Countries with high alcohol and tobacco taxes do not suffer from this problem. ") had nothing to do with the addictive properties of the substances, only with your assumption that high taxes would make users buy on the black market, which I proved incorrect. Even if there are high taxes, people will still buy legally, because: 1) Black market drugs will always be more expensive. 2) Legal markets are safer. "There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of chemical substances available for medical use that would kill a person in seconds if ingested, in a dose that you can barely fit on your fingernail. Thankfully, there are rules and regulations that protect people from having these drugs readily available. In addition, for any drug that one can become addicted to, there are series of rules and regulations preventing abuse and further addiction. " Anyone who makes an informed choice, and chooses an option which will cause them that much harm, deserves the consequences. Personal responsibility, along with personal liberty and individual sovereignty, is a principle upon which this country was founded. "Let's go back to Health Insurance. My opponent thinks that because alcohol and cigarettes are fine, then so must these drugs. He is very, very poorly informed. My opponent's comparison of Cocaine, Heroin, and Ecstasy with tobacco and alcohol is completely unfounded. The addictive nature of these drugs as well as the inherent danger to one's health simply cannot be compared to that of tobacco or alcohol. The very thought of such a comparison is ludicrous. What my opponent does not understand is that there is absolutely no safe way to take these three drugs recreationally. To make it available for recreational use is, for all intents and purposes, to turn them into addicts and destroy their health. Normally, that would be okay with my opponent because of his stance on personal liberty. Health insurance is hideously expensive already. The more meds people take, the more sick they get, the more hospital visits, the more expensive for everyone. With all of these addicts popping up, regular people who think legal = safe, people who ignorantly think as my opponent does: That the deadliest, most addictive drugs in the world are like sipping a wine cooler or a smoking a newport, do you really want to pay the hospital bills for people this irresponsible? " I fully understand that the drugs I propose to legalize are more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, but I don't think you can rule out a comparison between these drugs. I have already noted the fundamental similarities in their nature, namely their physical dangers, their ability to cause serious addictions, their purely recreational use, and their lack of medical benefits. CONCLUSION: In the process of debating health issues, my opponent has forgotten my argument. I never endorsed drug use. I never said it was not dangerous. My goal in ending the War on Drugs has been the eradication of several pressing social problems, and the discontinuation of a useless and destructive government policy which, to this date, has FAILED to adequately restrict the the proliferation of dangerous drugs. ALL of my original points and subpoints remain standing. I have already shown his two main arguments on health care and taxation to be the product of fallacious logic. They rely on two unsupported assertions: 1) That legalization will cause drug use and addiction to "skyrocket". 2) That high taxes will cause drug users to buy from the black market. In closing, I would like voters to consider the following: 1) Increased personal use of recreational substances will likely not cause the breakdown of society. 2) Organized crime, drug cartels (which are currently in danger of spilling into the US), and terrorist groups, all of which profit off of the illegality of drugs, have a FAR higher probability of doing serious damage. 3) The United States government has a moral obligation to protect its society from danger as best as it can. Which of the above alternatives seem more dangerous to you? 4) The War on Drugs has been a government policy for at least 20 years, and it has utterly failed in its purpose. All it is right now is a waste of money and effort. Because the greater welfare of society is the goal, the US government ought to end the War on Drugs. The resolution is affirmed. |
10 | 7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | should kids be vaccinated Well it is time for me to expand on my previous two points. My first point is that people do have dangerous reactions to vaccines. The probability of these dangerous reactions are different depending on the vaccine. Each vaccine has a different probability of a bad reactions and different types of bad reactions (1). By forcing everyone to take a vaccine forces some to take something harmful, and in rare situations even lethal. Currently working at a bio-lab with a safety level of 3 requires mandatory vaccines, but its reasons for being mandatory are far more justifiable since it deals with working with harmful pathogens as part of the job. But the requirement points out crucial effects of making vaccines mandatory, it prevents people with harmful reactions to vaccines from being able to be in the job. For example, Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into biosafety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures. If vaccines were to be mandatory, it would force people with bad reactions to either do something that makes them sick or even worse kill them, or be force to go through any punishments for not following the mandate. My second point is that the government should not be able to force people to have a substance injected into their body. There are certain things that should not be in the governments power do to the possibility of abuse. While it may currently seem that the government cannot do anything wrong, that doesn't mean that it can't go down hill in the future. The last thing you need in the future is a corrupt government that can inject the citizens with what it deems fit. In addition mandating vaccines encroaches on our rights. People should have a right to decide what doesn't go into our body. Sources 1 http://www.cdc.gov... |
18 | f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes In this round, I will be providing rebuttal to Thett's offensive arguments and defending my own arguments against Thett's rebuttals. Framework Thett begins by expressing surprise at a purely utilitarian framework rather than higher principles such as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not a higher principle. Maybe the purpose of establishing a utilitarian framework was unclear: my framework establishes a system in which impacts are weighed; not a common 'theme' of arguments. My framework argued (and was never contested) that impacts ought to be weighed based on the goodness to badness ratio; goodness being the creation of more positive mental states than negative ones. Because Thett never contested my framework, separation of church and state only becomes a 'higher' principle in that its impact weighed in positive to negative mental states outweighs any other impacts; or, in the sense of a 'principal', categories of impact (such as economic growth, unemployment, crime, and such.) Thett's claim at the end of this section that if religion is proved as an overall benefit and taxes would harm the prevalence of religion, he would automatically win, is simply untrue. By my established framework, as long as a higher impact is created by taxing churches (a higher impact than harm done to prevalence of religion), I win the debate. Religion is a social good I do not contest the health benefits of being religious. Thus, I concede all of what Thett says here; with the exception community gatherings since that can easily be done at public schools rather than churches. This entire contention only gains impact if Thett can show that taxing churches would result in less religious attendance through the inability of people attending church (because the local church closes down.) I find that this link is unwarranted, and extremely weak at best. If you go back and read through the debate, the only times Thett addresses churches shutting down is through unwarranted claims. There is the exception of bringing up 26,000 Catholic properties in America, of which I address and negate in my second to last paragraph of the next contention. Thus, the link between taxing churches and decrease in health is nonexistent as it is thrown away on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy. Regardless, even if a link did exist and this argument had any impact, the amount of good that could be done with $14.6 billion (see next contention) far outweighs the amount of good that attending church does. $14.6 billion could save millions of lives through preventing starvation and crime. These impacts outweigh decreased stress and lengthened lifetimes. This entire contention is negated on two layers. Economic effects The beginning of this contention is spent attacking my source for the statistic of $71 billion raised from taxing churches. The source can be seen here [1]. I will start at the beginning of the calculation and go step by step until I reach the conclusion. The average church property value is estimated at $1.7 million. This is reached from averaging the property values of 47 different churches in Tampa, Florida. I think this is a reasonable estimate given that the median household property value in the US is $189,400 [2]. The median household property value in Tampa is $165,200 [3]. Because churches are zoned for commercial properties and are only able to be built on residential properties after obtaining a variance, most churches lie on commercial property [4]. And since residential and commercial property values are proven to exhibit strong correlation [5], and commercial property values tend to be significantly higher in value than residential properties [6], the estimation would follow a national trend. As my source [6] explains, it is standard to have a residential property sell for $100,000 and a commercial property of the exact same size across the street sells for $1,000,000. As logic shows, the $1.7 million statistic is reliable. The average property tax on households is 1.29% [7] and commercial property taxes are 20% higher [8], which puts the tax at 1.55%. Thus the average church would thus pay $26,350 in taxes. Given there are 300,000 churches, that ends up being $7,905,000,000. That's $7.9 billion. Since under the resolution I am only arguing for commercial income tax and property tax, I drop the prior $71 billion to $7.9 billion. Thus my overall money raised from church taxes is $14.6 billion. Thett's next point is that a tax would shut down thousands of churches and thus lose many jobs. First of all the entire assertion that churches would close down or jobs would be lost is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. But regardless, even if jobs are lost, since the money is reallocated to secular organizations, the same number of new employees are hired at the organization than were lost at the church. This compensates for any lost jobs. Thett makes a sidepoint in the second paragraph noting that 71% of church expenses are on operation costs, which he argues would be tax deductible because internal operations are essential to spending on charity. Thus, the government would only get a portion of that already donated to charity. And since my plan would use the taxed money to donate to charity, my plan would seem pointless since I am taxing charity donations to spend on charity. This argument does not work for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church's. These internal operation expenses are for religious practice, such as worship, rather than operations relating to charity. Thus, these internal operations would not be tax deductible. The only exception for this is when the church files to be classed as a non profit, or a 501(c)(3) organization. When this happens no income can be used for "private purposes" [9]. This eliminates the ability of a church to function as a church, and thus no longer becomes a church since it provides no worship services, guidance, or whatever. All profit is donated to charity except for money spent to maintain the donation of money (operating expenses.) My plan would not tax these non profit organizations, only churches. And churches are inherently for profit, as my logic just showed. Thus, my tax would take away X amount of money, of which 29% would ordinarily be used for charity, and I would donate it to charity making 92% of it used for charity. Based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out here. The other option is that the church's donations to charities are written off on their taxes, and thus I am only taxing the remaining taxable income: 71% of their income. The tax on that income would then further be spent on charity due to my plan, and again, based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out. Thett goes on to cite the Catholic church in spending 93% of their $170 billion budget on charity. This is all true, and it is of course good. But the claim that church taxes would "tax them out of existence" is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. What will happen is a portion of their budget will be deducted in taxes, which then, according to my plan, will be reallocated to secular nonprofits, of which are just as or more utilitarian in spending their money. It's important to note that using the example of the Catholic Church is cherry-picking, and a more topical example would be the national average, which is 29% of the money going to charity. Taxing and reallocating it would make 92% go to charity. More lives are saved, diseases cured, and homes built through my plan. But even regardless of this, as I said earlier, any money that the Catholic church uses for charity is tax deductible. This means that only funds used for non charity related uses, such as worship, guidance, or whatever is actually taxed. Saying that hospitals would close, or any other negative affect to charity is simply untrue, a tax would only harm the worship part of church. Separation of Church and State Thett's argument here is that the church and the state have a truce of mutually assured destruction. The problem with this is that is makes the unwarranted assumption that churches would retaliate, or that their retaliation is bad. Neither of these are true. First of all, the head of the largest religious institution in the world endorses church taxes for noncharitable churches [11]. Secondly, taxes won't significantly harm religious organizations, and Thett has given no argument that it would, so significant retaliation is unlikely. Regardless, the only retaliation that Thett brings up is in endorsing candidates. I don't see this as a bad thing, as religious institutions have every right to exercise their free speech and endorse candidates. There is no negative here, or at least no negative that Thett has argued for. So the idea that taxing churches is bad because it will result in churches retaliating by endorsing candidates has no impact for Thett since he failed to show why churches endorsing candidates is a bad thing. There is no arguable difference between the Catholic Church, Bernie Sanders, or the NAACP endorsing someone for president. None of these are bad things, this argument has no impact. Also, the claim that the tax exemption status would just be returned is outside the scope of the resolution since it is a should proposition, not a *would*. Suing the government because your taxes went up due to a newly passed law has no ground. The government does not have to spend any money defending that kind of lawsuit since there is nothing to sue over. There is room for debate in what's defined as a church though, and these are funded by wealthy organizations making the cost of these courses more expensive. Sources in comments |
50 | aad1c75f-2019-04-18T19:33:31Z-00007-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators I will attack his points, then follow up with my own. 1- The American Heart Association's study on triphasic defibrillation was inconclusive. My opponent claims that replacing both monophasic defibrillators as well as biphasic defibrillators is the "best thing to do", and bases this statement on a study by the American Heart Association for which he provides a link. This information is very familiar to me. The studies conducted by the AHA on triphasic defibrillation were experimental, and were not conducted with defibrillators, rather they were conducted with devices created for the purpose of the experiment, and the waveform was controlled by a "Macintosh computer". It is both impractical and illegal to employ these devices in a hospital setting, and it was these experiments which led to the development of biphasic defibrillators. Note- the development of triphasic defibrillators was not a result of the experiments, nor subsequent experiments employing 2- Some of the results listed in this 2000 article were from as early as 1983. It has been 25 years and triphasic external defibrillators have not been developed. If we are going to debate choices, and what is the best choice, the best choice should be one that is available. When referring to cardioversion, monophasic, and biphasic defibrillators, and within the context of "replacing monophasics with biphasics", it is important to note that I am referring to existing technology that is available and present within hospitals. Replacing both monophasic and biphasic defibrillators with non-existent triphasic defibs is impossible. 3- My opponent's contention that "most defibrillators that can deliver a biphasic waveform already contain the switches and other hardware necessary for delivery of a triphasic waveform" is untrue. He is citing an article published in 2000, which contains info from older studies. The various biphasic defibrillators on the market- Zoll, Philips, Physio Control, HP do not have the hardware or switches necessary for delivery of a triphasic waveform. Furthermore, they do not possess the controlling software. On top of that, alteration of an existing FDA approved medical device and making it a completely different device in which the dose and use would be severely altered is illegal. The FDA has a process for approving these devices, and triphasic external defibrillators have not been approved for use, and there is no proof that they are even in development. 4- My opponents contention, which I affirm is false, that biphasics possess the hardware to become triphasics would still require monophasics to be replaced with biphasics. "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". I don't believe this statement to be true, and would love to hear the electronics theory behind this, but if it IS true, and since triphasic defibrillators are not commercially available, you would still have to replace monophasics with biphasics if you wanted triphasics. It would be legally impossible, however, to alter a biphasic defibrillator to deliver a third phase. It is probably also electronically impossible, given that a biphasic operates essentially as an AC current (delivering one positive charge followed by a negative charge), to deliver a third purely positive charge that is part of the original complete waveform. My opponent cited a study without understanding the technology being cited within the study (implantable internal defibrillators). I would love to hear how an external defibrillator can be altered to deliver a third phase (electronically AND legally). Now, my opponent can argue that I did not specify external defibrillators, HOWEVER within the context of the study I referenced, my reference to monophasic defibrillators, etc. all make it obvious to the knowledgeable debater that I am referring to external defibrillators. Internal implantable defibrillators are commonly referred to as ICD's- implantable cardioverter defibrillators- rather than "defibrillator" which is the term used for the common external monophasic or biphasic defibrillators we see in hospitals, airports, train stations, ambulances, etc. , including AED's or Automated External Defibrillators which are already almost all (if not all) biphasic. If my opponent wants to implement the best possible technology then he must restate his entire argument, nullifying his R1 argument because quadriphasic waveforms are more efficient than triphasic waveforms. Alas, we are not discussing which waveform is more efficient, rather whether or not biphasic defibrillators- an available technology, should replace monophasic defibrillators- a widely used technology. The process is already taking place voluntarily at hospitals throughout the country. Lifepak 9, Lifepak 10, 11, and even early versions of the Lifepak 12 used monophasic technology, but even the Lifepak 12 has gone beyond it's recommended life cycle. With the recent Joint Commission Sentinel Alert warning about the use of outdated technology, it is time hospitals stop beating around the bush and replace their outdated defibrillators. Thank you. |
14 | 8bc06cc8-2019-04-18T13:52:54Z-00002-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | is Pepsi better than Coke How to recognise lots of different trees from quite a long way away The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch |
9 | 684780b9-2019-04-18T19:21:40Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms ought to be worn in primary and secondary schools. I will begin by rebutting his contentions and will then move on to my own. ======== "Consider why judges wear judicial robes. Clearly, the judicial system would not disintegrate if judges dresses casually. Nonetheless, it is virtually universally accepted that there is an incremental gain in focusing both the judge and the court proceeding that improves justice. " I would argue that the practice of judges wearing judicial uniforms is an unnecessary one, but that is not my main argument. My main point is that this is an improper analogy. Judges lead court hearings, and are the focus of attention. Students are not. A better analogy would be a uniform for the jury. But the jury does not wear a uniform [1], so this analogy in fact works in favor of con; what the jury wears in practice is more analogous to a dress code. A dress code is a "formally or socially imposed standard of dress" [2], and refers to types of clothing more than a specific uniform. I do support a dress code, as it is not appropriate to wear just anything to school, but a uniform is excessive. Back to the analogy, the judge is more analogous to the teacher. So this point argues more that teachers should wear uniforms, not students. "We see also se [sic] this in the practices of the police, military, security guards, airline pilots, nurses (and doctors' white coats), professional chefs, and many private companies, like package delivery services. " All the named professions are very specialized. For many of these, the reason for wearing a uniform is clear: so that they are easily recognizable. In a hospital, for example, it would not do to confuse the nurses with the patients. And police should be recognizable so that we can quickly get help from them. But there is no such need for students to be recognizable. "Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. There are differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance in these schools, but they all relate to discipline and focus. " 1) How is my opponent quantifying success/performance? 2) My opponent has not provided evidence to support these claims. 3) Catholic schools differ from public schools in many ways, and any of these differences could be responsible. An increase in discipline may not be responsible. The main reason is probably parental attitude. Parents who are willing to spend extra money to send their children to private school clearly care about their children's education. It is easy to see how this attitude can lead to an increase in school performance. My opponent cites a study showing a potential correlation between school uniforms and reduced crime rate. However, the study is incomplete. Many policies (schoolwide, citywide, etc) can change in six years, and there is very little evidence that school uniforms were the cause of the change. The study my opponent cited also stated that "there is little research on the effectiveness of school uniforms. " [3] Correlation, while something, is far from evidence. Additionally, the credibility of the study is questionable. Why would school uniforms, admitted by my opponent to probably only cause "an incremental gain" in performance, lead to such dramatic changes? Very few policies could cause that sort of change. I would need some proof of the credibility of this study before I would accept this extraordinary evidence. "2) [. .. ] It puts everyone in the same boat so they are more likely to help each other succeed. " Why do students not cooperate? Why do they instead compete? Am I supposed to believe that students aren't cooperating because they're wearing different CLOTHING? "This is a reason why players on sports teams wear identical uniforms. " A school is not a sports team. If students are made to wear uniforms, it will emphasize the divisions between different schools or school districts. In sports, these divisions are necessary, but a school is not a sports team. Uniforms are potentially harmful for this reason. Addressing the original point, my opponent seems to be saying that uniforms improve sense of unity. Even if they do, how is this beneficial to a scholastic setting? Fast-paced communal reactions are unnecessary. "3) It removes the distractions of fashion trends" The concept of fashion trends being distracting is pure fiction. Distractions occur due to boring material or boring teachers, and school uniforms don't fix that. "4) [. .. ] reduce clothing costs. " I hardly see how buying an extra article of clothing could reduce costs. Yes, the school system can provide uniforms for lower-income families, but the money has to come from somewhere – and that somewhere is taxes. Why not skip a step and just shift more of the tax burden to the rich? Chasing fashion fads may be expensive, but it's optional. Parents do not have to buy so much clothing for their children. Additionally, children will want to have fashionable clothing for outside of school: who would wear a school uniform all the time? So in the end, no money is saved. *** My opponent cites a study by Mrunsma and Rokquemore: "The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. " The study used the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, a nationally representative set of schools [4]. While it is true that they did not compare schools before and after uniform policies were implemented, this is irrelevant. Firstly, they reduced bias by accounting for other variables such as school location. Secondly, comparing schools before and after is still biased because it is highly likely that something besides school uniform policy changed between the first and second studies. "If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. " This is self-defeating: if school uniforms could achieve dramatic improvement, they would be adopted universally, which they were not. ======== The character limit approaches, so I will keep my contentions short. It is worth noting that several potential contentions have already been addressed above: for instance, I could make the point that school uniforms are expensive, but I already made that point in response to my opponent's fourth contention. Pre-Contention: Unless school uniforms are proven to be more beneficial than detrimental, there is no reason to use them. All else being equal, a school uniform is an unnecessary entity. Contention 1: School uniforms restrict the students' self-expression. Many students feel that the best way to express themselves is through their form of dress, and if they are required to wear school uniforms, it stifles creativity and self-expression. I concede that uniforms are not the only means of self-expression, but students will still feel stifled and many will be unsuccessful at finding alternative means of expression. Some students may even use inappropriate means of self-expression such as painting graffiti on school property, rebounding and dressing overly inappropriately, or bullying or harming other students. Contention 2: School uniforms greatly limit the potential for diversity. Cultural uniqueness, for instance, is usually promoted through clothing. Contention 3: School uniforms enforce conformity, and conformity is stifling to creativity and originality. Even the limited conformity enforced by school uniforms is still stifling. Conformity leads to stagnation. ======== I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to his response. [1] ehow. com/how_13928_dress-jury-duty. html [2] merriam-webster. com/dictionary/dress%20code (definition) [3] findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200310/ai_n9248791/pg_7 [4] nces. ed. gov/surveys/NELS88/ |
35 | 5547489c-2019-04-18T17:05:01Z-00002-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why I am going to be in the center on this issue. Although some teens can handle violent video games, some can not. Some, in studies, have become more aggressive and less-agreeable due to the playing of violent video games. My personal position is that we should not take risks; violent video games should be more strongly prohibited against teens than now. I believe that a parent can decide what is right for their children - but the teen should not be able to buy the game without parental consent. |
42 | 1568e11-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Ice hockey is better than Hockey "Human intelligence is a reflection of the intelligence that produces everything. In knowing, we are simply extending the intelligence that comes to and constitutes us. We mimic the mind of God, so to speak. Or better, we continue and extend it."-Huston Smith"When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking." -Albert Einstein"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." -Miguel de Unamuno |
31 | d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Smoking is as bad a Obesity Yes but smoking also causes lung cancer and Pregnancy growing slowing down No evidence is needed to just search or look at a smoke packet to see both theses results |
24 | 4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | flat tax Rebuttal and Analysis "Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink" This has nothing to do with our debate. It does not affirm the topic nor negate any of my contentions. "100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time." A flat tax can be any rate as long as "taxpayers pay taxes at the same percentage rate of their total income" so it is irrelevant if our government would implement a 100% income tax or not. What is relevant is that a flat tax could call for 100% of an individual's income. "Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away?" No. Nobody's income should be taxed. "Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it." All of these things are generally funded by local and state governments and not the federal income tax so a flat tax would do little to fix this problem. "if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law!" Using this logic wouldn't 0% spark even more economic growth than 10%? If we assume that lowering income taxes improves economic growth, a 0% income tax rate would always beat a 10% tax rate. "Well, It is not economically sound." Exactly. "Also it is still economically sound" How can something be not economically sound and still be economically sound? "a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now." That is not the debate. "If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about." Not exactly. Capitalism- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[10] "I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want?" When you get down to the basics, it is either one of two things; either the government owns 100% of your income and allows you to keep a percentage of it or they steal a percentage of your income. "Well they do that now don't they? Just saying." If you are implying I support the current tax system you are mistaken. If you are not implying that, this argument has no validity in this debate. "A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it." It is absurd to claim that a system with no income tax is terrible and then give an example of why it is terrible with systems that have income taxes. Also, a sales tax is no more manipulatable than a flat tax. "You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not." The more local a tax is the more power citizens have over that tax so I don't understand where you are coming from when you claim the Federal government would have to interfere with state taxation to keep it from getting out of control. It is far more likely for Federal taxes to get out of hand.[10]http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
43 | b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00007-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. "It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing." The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: "In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water."[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: "How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare." It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. "Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles." Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument "Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water." Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? "Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits." Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste "Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution." This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. "Less regulated. No such point was made." It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] "Costs more than tap. Not necessarily." No proof given. "Bigger carbon footprint. No such point." Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. "Not as good for you as tap. Refuted." It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] "Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water." No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... |
13 | ee0f4916-2019-04-18T19:05:18Z-00007-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives I thank the opposition for his reply, and will proceed to answer his arguments and further support my own. 1. His first argument is that the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 has already provided funding for alternative energy, and yet alternative energy projects have been halted because energy prices are no longer in the headlines. However, this is irrelevant because the Energy Improvement and Extension Act increased funding for traditional nuclear reactors. Without the shift to IFR technology, those traditional reactors will continue to generate waste which will be stored in Yucca Mountain. As stated in Round 1, we must shift to IFR's regardless of other alternative energy projects because failure to do so risks a nuclear volcano, destroying the biosphere. 2. His second argument is that funding for IFR's trades off with healthcare, defense, education, and welfare. I have several responses: a. First, some generic points: i. Spending is already out of control. According to the Colorado Daily News on June 30, 2010, the federal budget deficit is projected to hit $13.6 trillion next year. This means he is in a double bind: Either new spending crowds out education, and it should have already happened with our record deficits, or the deficits prove we can always borrow more money to pay for our programs. There is no reason why we can't spend money on healthcare, defense, education, welfare AND IFR's. Either way, the trade-off won't happen. ii. We only need $200-300 million dollars to develop the IFR. According to Tom Randall, Director of the McGovern Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, IFR's can be developed within 2-3 years for $200-$300 million – with an "m" – dollars. This means that the cost of IFR's isn't sufficient to trigger his trade-off. iii. IFR's will bring in more tax revenue than they cost. According to the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, a new wave of nuclear construction would create billions of dollars in federal tax revenue and create hundreds of thousands of jobs through the entire life cycle of development. This means that we would have MORE money to fund education and the other programs he fears will be cut. iv. IFR's are more cost efficient than the forms of alternative energy the government is currently subsidizing. According to Dr. Charles Till, the price of IFR generated energy would be competitive with coal and natural gas, and cheaper than other forms of alternative energy. This means that by using IFR's, the government can end subsidies for the other more expensive AE technologies. b. Second, on healthcare: Funding for healthcare has just seen a massive increase. According to CBS News on March 23, 2010, the health care reform bill will create subsidies for individuals and families up to 400% of the federal poverty line. This money has already been appropriated, and will not be affected by my proposal. c. Third, on defense: Cuts to defense spending are inevitable. According to the Christian Science Monitor on June 28, 2010, the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the persistent deficits means that the defense budget will be slashed no matter what. Thus, if cutting the defense budget is as bad as he says it will be, the impacts are inevitable. There is no reason why spending $200 million on an IFR will destroy the $861 billion defense budget. d. Fourth, on education: i. Funding for education is increasing now. According to The Politico on February 2, 2010, President Obama's budget increases spending on education from $32.4 billion to $71.5 billion in 2011. This means that education is a budget priority, and is unlikely to be cut if we spend $200 million on an IFR. ii. Although some federal money is spent on education, most education funding is done at the state or local level. According to Minnesota Public Radio on January 28, 2010, one typical school district receives more than 80% of its funds from the state government. Thus, even if the federal government reduced its education spending, it would not create a major impact on education. e. Fifth, on welfare: Welfare spending is unsustainable in the status quo. According to the Heritage Institute, welfare spending is projected to cost $10.3 billion over the next ten years. This will cause the country to go bankrupt, harming everyone, including welfare recipients. Thus, some reduction in the amount of welfare spending is inevitable, and won't be caused by switching to IFR's. f. Sixth is impact analysis: i. Regardless of the cost in terms of trade-off, one thing is certain: status quo nuclear technology will continue unless something is done to change its course. This will result in many more thousands of tons of radioactive waste being stuffed into Yucca Mountain. ii. Even if the risk is low, there is a chance of a nuclear volcano. If this were to happen, it would be biosphericide – the end of all life on earth. As stated by Dr. David Camarow, "there is no 'low enough' when the consequences are so cataclysmic… as a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions." Thus, even if all of his impacts are true, we cannot risk the chance of not developing IFR's. iii. He says that we cannot support "baseless" claims about IFR's because of a recession. However, remember points 12 and 13 from Round 1. Nuclear power can generate billions of dollars of revenue and create thousands of jobs in the U.S. Thus, spending money to develop IFR's will help end the recession, or at the very least be an improvement on the status quo. 3. His third and final argument is that the free market solves better. I have several responses: a. First, there is no reason why the free market and government incentives are mutually exclusive. There is no free market in the world which is entirely free from some form of government influence. Considering there is government involving with nuclear power now, he articulates zero risk that one more government subsidy will create. According to Scott Sklar of the Mother Earth News on January 12, 2005, coal and oil subsidies top billions of dollars per year, making fossil fuels artificially cheap. Thus, free markets and federal funding for IFR's can co-exist. b. The free market cannot solve the energy crisis. According to Jeff Vail, reporter for the Energy Bulletin on March 5, 2007, the free market ignores solutions which do not generate an immediate or near term profit. Relying on the free market will never develop a mass scale non-carbon energy because it would violate a fundamental market principle. At the moment, fossil fuels are (comparatively) cheap, so there is no market incentive to develop any alternative energy. c. In the status quo, the market will continue to use status quo nuclear power. This will lead to the risk of a nuclear volcano. Regardless of whether the free market is good (or better than federal incentives), we MUST switch to IFR's to avoid a volcanic Yucca Mountain. Thus, any advantage to using the free market is outweighed by the risk that the free market won't switch to IFR's. d. Finally, I do not need to prove that using federal subsidies is the BEST method of reaching alternative energy, but rather that we SHOULD increase federal alternative energy incentives. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "should" means "must, or ought to (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency). Thus, I must show that it is our duty, or that it is proper or expedient to increase funding for IFR's. Based on the dangers of waste storage in Yucca Mountain, I have proven that funding IFR's is our duty, is proper, and is expedient. Regardless of whether or not it is the BEST method, it is better than the status quo, has no disadvantages, and we SHOULD do it. |
5 | e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00004-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized This round I shall go over my opponent's case first and then move on to my rebuttals. My opponent states that Privatizing RIB would lead to a collapse due to stock market options. There are a few things wrong with this. One of them tend to be that my opponnent has painted the picture of the government would have no safe guards on this. If you look at every government program or new technology, the government is always there to place some sort of safeguard against it. For a key example here is we can see that FDR created the FDIC that would product up to a certain amount in banks [1]. The government would most likely do something of a similiar matter here where the government would require these institutes to create a war chest so they are able to withstand an economic downturn. Under this case, the business would be less inclined to take huge risks and are more likely to take safer ones. Following a recession and during one, investors tend to focus on low growth, low risk stocks. They also tend to look towards smaller businesses which is a huge contribution to why there's a huge growth rate amongst them [2] Another key issue is my opponent is bringing up economic downturns being a huge issue and brings up the Farming Bubble, Dot com, and the Housing bubble. These may be generally bad, but if we tend to look at the recovery stages we can see that this isn't as bad as my opponent's wants us to believe as people will quickly regain any small amount of money they lost. We can see that after the Farming Bubble in the 80's that the US GDP had a 2.9% growth and 1.4% after Dotcom. We can see that overall the economy has huge growth rates after these recessions that truely makes up for any downturns and then some. The economy has also been expierencing fewer recessions and longer growth periods showing that much of this tends to almost be a non-issue. We also have to factor in how the increase in funds into the stocks would expand growth exponentially showing that a recession would be unlikely for a great period of time. First I would like to address the 75 year solvency issue that my opponent has brought up. The source actually talks about several different alternatives and how it would work with said 75 year test. It actually reads," Because Social Security has been operating as a defined benefit plan for over 75 years, it would be impractical to convert it immediately into a pure individual account plan, and no proposal has been made to do so.[3]"I have stated in my last round that it would be a gradual transition. Not the immidiate change over my opponent is talking about. My opponent also miscontrews the idea in transition. Everyone would still have their funds with the transition in process. The Social Security budget has been used for other things in the government as they reallocated funds to pay for other projects. The most recent one was in the recent spending bill passed at the end of the year. The government could easily reallocate the budget for transition. http://www.youtube.com...Even if taxes for RIB needs to be raised, which is highly unlikely, it will be offset by the benefits coming from this plan since social security barely meets the Senior Citizen needs and Privatized RIB actually increases this substantially which would help Senior Citizens out and allow them to live more in comfort. Contention 1: Social Security will crash My opponnent agrees with this contention, but disagrees on the solution. The crisis brought up is simply that we cannot allow for Social Security RIB to become insolvent in the status quo as it would harm the average American. Without any type of alternative, this would create a massive issue for us as we would begin to see a decline in consumer spending as more Senior Citizens will have to move back into their children's home and we would return to an economic slump under this case. There are several other key issues that arise out of this, but the key objective is that there needs to be some sort of alternative given and the only way to do this is privatization. The government continuiously takes funds from Social Security and it would be easy to help use these funds instead of allocation for other projects, but to help in privatization. In 2015, it was reported that Social Security's Admin and benefits costs the US 24% of our national budget which is harming other programs we could be using it for or even simply using it to pay off our debts [4]. Contention 2: Privatization solves.My opponent brings up the Housing crisis again, but that is a case where the market was not regulated and in many to most circumstances it is. Medical Licensing is determined by the AMA yet they are private and have the public's best interest. After the crisis, the government put through several measures like instiuting the Voulcker rule with Dodd-Frank and now's there's a push to re-instate Glass-Stegal. Larger investments making things cheaper is a quite simple Trickle-down economics. With a large increase and imput that would be poored into the stock market, there would be a huge new amount of capital avialable. The owner's of these businesses where the stock is being bought would then see an increase in Equity which they could use to increase their assets either by purchasing of land, equipment, or any type of tangible assets. These long term assets would be able to give back to the economy through providing an increase in jobs for the building of these places and it's upkeep. This would create a great loop that would send our economy skyrocketing. Do to the ample amount of money aviable, people would be able to afford more goods which increases production and continues this loop. We would start to move towards full employment. We can see that there's a great deal of stocks that do go and bring back a great return the S&P has one averaging at 7%, but this is assuming that only one stock is invested in [5]. My opponent simply assumes that a great deal of the stock holders will hang on to the stocks all day long. Many of the traders today have the option to have a Profit and Loss limit in order to prevent huge losses and maintain maximum growth. We have to emphasize the ability to be able to inherit your RIB if you die. This is something that, in the status quo, is done inadiquately as the SSA only will allow a lump payment of $225, which is nowhere near what the family would need to supliment for the lost income [6]. My opponent attacks the Chilean example due to a few differences, but we do have to see that this is it's application in process and we cannot simply discard it do to that point and that point alone. Though there were some key differences we do have to see that the Chilean system did it with a ratio higher than the US when they started off and the Chilean economy wasn't as effective as the US and it helped change the Chilean economy into a powerhouse in the South American Continent. I would continue, but I am out of characters, so unfortunately I'll have to end my round here and pass things off to my opponent. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. ( http://tinyurl.com...) |
35 | ce330406-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00004-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior S1: First, the language argument that "Aggression doesn't equate Violence" without a basis disregards context. Your "refutation"(?) exceeds the source. You have to provide that it isn't specific to that definition not that a word has more than one definition in general. Bunk. To back this up from within the source: [[ Japanese children rated their own behavior in terms of physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking or getting into fights with other kids; the U.S. children rated themselves too, but the researchers took into account reports from their peers and teachers as well. ]] There is no reason it doesn't refer to violence. --- S2: Second is a misquote: [[ But Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, co-director of the Center for Mental Health and the Media at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, isn't convinced. "It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence," said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. There are definitely games kids shouldn't be playing, she said, for example those where hunting down and killing people is the goal. But she argues that the label "violent video games" is too vague. Researchers need to do a better job at defining what is considered a violent video game and what constitutes aggressive behavior, she added. Further, she adds, playing games rated "M" for mature has become "normative behavior" for adolescents, especially boys. "It's just a routine part of what they do," she says. ]] First, it exceeds the claim that it effects children by entering into a different age bracket (adolescents) and second it's a generic counter-balance claim for any given newsource to prevent bias however she too states that certain games should not be used and then proposes that the proposition is loose, which is fine however it does not dismiss: [[ In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure. This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study -- a strong predictor of future bad behavior. The findings are "pretty good evidence" that violent video games do indeed cause aggressive behavior, says Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann, director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor. There are two ways violent media can spur people to violent actions, said Huesmann, who has been studying violence in media and behavior for more than 30 years. First is imitation; children who watch violence in the media can internalize the message that the world is a hostile place, he explains, and that acting aggressively is an OK way to deal with it. Also, he says, kids can become desensitized to violence. "When you're exposed to violence day in and day out, it loses its emotional impact on you," Huesmann said. "Once you're emotionally numb to violence, it's much easier to engage in violence." ]] It doesn't even counter it. They are talking about two different age groups and I focusing on children. My opponents criticism holds no water. --- Q1: The second source is pretty much the same. [[ When asked if it was okay for a boy to strike a peer if that peer said something negative about him, for example, these kids were more likely to say yes. They also scored higher on measures of hostility, answering that they would to respond with aggressive action when provoked, even accidentally. The more long-term gamers were also more likely to fantasize about hitting someone they didn"t like. ]] Solves the "language" issue. --- Q2: [[ Working with 3,034 boys and girls in the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth grades in Singapore, Anderson and his colleagues asked the children three times over a period of two years detailed questions about their video game habits. ... "What this study does is show that it"s media violence exposure that is teaching children and adolescents to see the world in a more aggressive kind of way," says Anderson. "It shows very strongly that repeated exposure to violent video games can increase aggression by increasing aggressive thinking." Brain imaging studies also hint that exposure to violent gaming may actually temporarily change the brain. In a 2011 study, for example, after a week of daily video gaming, brain scans of a small group of volunteers showed less activity in the regions connected to emotions, attention, and inhibition of impulses compared to participants who played non-violent video games. The effect appeared to be reversible, but the results suggested that extended periods of play could lead to more stable changes in the brain. ]] --- Q3: Completely shows my opponent misquoted the segment chosen: [[ Previous studies have suggested that the short-term effects of spiking stress hormones"typical of the fight-or-flight response"can rev up players" sensitivity to slights or provocations, and that playing violent games can lead to longer-term suppression of empathy. Another recent study purported to find a link between violent video games and racism. Anderson and his team, however, did not see any significant difference in empathy among the players who played more or fewer hours. That confirmed earlier lab-based studies that showed both undergraduates who played violent games and those that played non-violent ones were equally likely to help scientists pick up dropped pens. ]] This has nothing to do with with children, for one, and it has nothing to do with this study the article is on, for two, it looks at other studies which suggested something entirely different that wasn't even measured in the study cited. The "third" point has the same problem as the third point last time as it's an anti-bias point however if one reads it: [[ More recent research has not found that children who play VVG are more violent than other kids, nor harmed in any other identifiable fashion. A recent longitudinal study of my own, following 165 10- to 14-year-old boys and girls over a three-year period, now in press with Journal of Psychiatric Research, finds no long-term link between VVG and youth aggression or dating violence. ]] The age itself exceeds that of the scope of the study itself. The actual study, if read, shows as the article states: "That"s because children tend to act less aggressively as they get older, and learn more mature ways of dealing with conflicts than lashing out." However it is backed up with the above in segment Q2 which goes back and addresses the issue throughout the study and the rerouting of native behavior and behavioral choices. --- O1: I am no longer going to constantly "assert" the equivocation problem since it's been shown false twice now and it is clearly false in the third if one should read it. It does not even hide the term violence and it is extremely clear that it refers to at least violent behavior and fighting. As for the "source doesn't present evidence" the studies are cited and there is a link to one at the bottom. It isn't impossible to verify. That doesn't even make sense. I would understand if there were no citations, it wasn't reviewed, it didn't have scholarly status, and it was not from a reputable source but there's no value to your "questioning" as it is as sound as any source would get. You have to objectively prove why it's not a sound source not just inject why you don't like it. The standard for endorsement has nothing to do with the validity of the information. That is an outright Strawman (http://www.nizkor.org...) and means nothing. --- F1: "Third, the evidence it uses isn't even significant. The results from the study said, and I quote, "These studies find that playing violent video games does, indeed, cause aggression. The effect is a correlation of about r = .20", which is statistically insignificant. It's more likely that an alternative cause, like one's previously mentioned, are causing the violent behavior other than the violence in video games themselves. " I have to prove that VVGs cause aggression. This proves that VVGs cause aggression. You rejection based on the "amount" of aggression is ( http://rationalwiki.org... ) shifting goalposts. Instead of my source proving the point and being sufficient my opponent has decided that it's "not enough" and "doesn't work" based on absolutely no criteria. Furthermore the opponent doesn't explain why it's statistically insignificant or what "r=.20" actually means which misleads those who do not know to simply be swayed without an explanation which further makes for an actual Appeal to Authority: Self (http://www.nizkor.org...) as my opponent feels they are of sufficient standing to declare this as fact without backing. --- Overview: Pivot 1: My opponent commits Equivocation as a means of defense. Pivot 2: My opponent misquotes the sources, does not posit his own, and inters his own reasoning as a means of dissuading others regardless of his not being an Authority and his not having grounds or ignoring the content and context. Pivot 3: My opponent admits that at least one source did provide sufficient evidence that it does occur but then shifts the goalpost stating that it's occurrence was not sufficient to meet their criteria which was not revealed prior making it shifting of goal posts, a logical fallacy, and completely unfair. Conclusion: I was hoping I'd be reading things that backed VVGs rather than having to discuss basic language deciphering skills and listening to made up on the spot criteria. Note: I dropped the last two sources in agreement with my opponent because though they are actually signs of of the behavior in children and why they are so impressionable (and it does talk about video games in the last two sources) it's easier to continue without them. |
44 | a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00001-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't |
21 | 4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate Change is man caused My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov... |
4 | cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Is Wrong I will make my rebuttals to Round 2 here in Round 3.1. Corporal Punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. Con adds to this by stating if the child is aware that they will be given corporal punishment, they will be more aware and prevent further bad actions/behaviors. Punishing the child for these behaviors, though it may be tempting, is not the way to go since it gives the impression that having the emotions in the first place is a bad thing. Klein suggests that rather than scolding a child for acting out, "Helping a child understand their negative emotion (anger, sadness) and in time learn to understand why they feel as they do will help them develop competence socially and emotionally. So, empathizing with a child, rather than scolding them, while setting a limit (i. e. , "I understand you are angry, but I can't let you hit. ") bears better outcomes later than scolding and punishing the young child. " Rather than "shutting down" a child's emotions, help your child see that you understand his frustration and it's OK to feel that way -- but that there's a better way to express it. [1]Con continues adding by stating that corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child, resulting misbehaviors. While this is true in some cases, parents are more likely to scold and give them other punishments, other than corporal punishment. Groundings, lectures, limits, etc. are a few examples of parent's different options to punish their child, other than corporal punishment.2. Corporal punishment is quick. Con takes this the school punishment way, by stating that other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because they can miss school and waste time. Sure, maybe while they are serving their punishments. .. but have you forgotten that the students will be then given all of the homework AND lessons when they come back to school? Teachers are not required but are heavily recommended to evaluate what they have learned. They can even have times before or after school so that the child can be privately taught what they have missed and must know. Therefore, resulting in the child gaining back their miss knowledge during detentions or suspensions. Therefore, non-corporal punishments are not a waste of time and can teach their child a lesson. It would only be a waste of time if the school gives detentions or suspensions for absurd reasons, which seems to be increasing over the years.3. A study shows that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. While my own arguments in Round 2 refute this claim, I must add something that this argument has made me remembered. Corporal punishment is child abuse and can cause trauma. In some cases—depending on the number of reports made, the severity of the abuse, and the available community resources—children may be separated from their parents and grow up in group homes or foster care situations, where further abuse can happen either at the hands of other abused children who are simply perpetuating a familiar patterns or the foster parents themselves. In 2004, 517,000 children were living in foster homes, and in 2005, a fifth of reported child abuse victims was taken out of their homes after child maltreatment investigations. [2] Sometimes, children do go back to their parents after being taken away, but these statistics are slim. It's easy to imagine that foster care and group home situations, while they may ease the incidence of abuse in a child's life, can lead to further types of alienation and trauma. For children that have suffered from abuse, it can be complex getting to the root of childhood trauma in order to alleviate later symptoms as adults. The question is, how does child abuse turn into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder later in life? What are the circumstances that cause this to happen in some cases and not others? [3] Therefore, the reason those have corporal punishment misbehave less is that of damaged family relationships and trauma. 4. Young children learn the dangers if you give them the pain of those dangers. The child will only learn the true way of those dangers if they experience it. If the child almost dies, why in any way would you want to hurt your child because they legitimately almost died? If you love them that much, you should be more or so having a heart attack than actually hurting your own child so they understand the pain of those dangers. It's best to keep them fully safe than experience any pain at all. It may cause trauma as well, they can be incredibly scared of those situations and can be bad if adults can do it themselves, not children.5. As corporal punishment decreased in schools, misbehavior has not decreased. I will not be refuting this argument fully if you do not show the proof (or the FULL link to the source) of where you find the proof. Those are my rebuttals for Round 3. I take the floor to Con. |
14 | 2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here. |
17 | b9e1a102-2019-04-18T17:32:22Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal Sorry it took me so long to post this. I'm going to take a little bit of a different spin on this argument. It is true that tobacco and alcohol are just as bad as marijuana and yet they are legal. However, if we legalize marijuana what kind of message are we sending as a society? That's its ok to do all of those things? Tobacco, alcohol, weed, everything should be illegal. Addictive substances hinder progress. If weed was made illegal people would just want to sit in their houses and smoke pot all day instead of going to work. |
17 | fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00003-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal for recreational use As I'm sure we've all heard from our health teachers, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. Marijuana can lead to the trial of other drugs which may be even more harmful that marijuana itself. I see what you mean by saying that there have been zero deaths in history from marijuana, however that statistic is simply regarding the short term effects while being under the influence. Your contentions have completely ignored the long term effects. For example, smoke inhalation (even from cannabis,) Can cause long term effects such as cancer. This debate is about the legalization of marijuana, and not about whether cigarettes and alcohol should be legal or not. Therefore, when I describe the health risks involved in marijuana (which are proved by what I have stated in round 1,) I am speaking about marijuana, not anything else. Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use, is because marijuana is terrible for mental health. Marijuana creates a feeling of anxiety to some user which have been linked to depression. This, I suppose would essentially be considered another health risk. With that being said, there are too many long term health risks behind marijuana, so therefore it should remain out of the hands of recreational users. |
45 | 4c47ade5-2019-04-18T14:44:42Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Team Debate: God Exists We thank Team Pro for accepting. We shall present our case in this round, and rebut in the next.C1) Transcendental argument against God For the first contention, we present the transcendental argument against the existence of God, formulated by analytic philosopher Michael Martin, the Professor Emeritus at Boston University [1]. If the universe was caused by an omniscient God, it is natural to suppose that God created logic and the physical laws within the universe. This would mean the universe, logic and science are contingent on God's existence, i.e. a proposition that God is necessarily existent is entailed from the idea of an omniscient cause of the universe. Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true, but if God caused logic, then logic cannot be philosophically necessary as it is contingent upon the existence of God. If logic is contingent upon God according to deistic assumption, then using logical reasoning to justify God naturally begs the question. "And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God." [2] Physical laws and science presuppose the uniformity of nature via. special relativity, thus there cannot be violations of such laws. The property of omnipotence violates the uniformity of nature by allowing supernatural actions that violate such physical laws, thus challenging the core assumption of science. If this core assumption can be challenged, there is no reason to believe science can argue for God [3]. Thus, any justification for the likelihood of God's existence, philosophical or scientific, would be impossible as God's existence would challenge the validity of necessary logic and the uniformity of nature. This makes it incoherent to state "God Exists" too, as that statement presumes facts about logic that cannot be changing. C2) A caused universe is incoherent a) Requirements for Causation Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that allow us to coherently talk about any form of causation whatsoever [4]. i. Time & the arrow of time (determined by entropy) ii. Physical laws Time and the arrow of time are naturally required to speak of causation. Without an arrow of time, it is impossible to coherently speak of a 'process' of anything, or a 'beginning' of something. The beginning would have to have a fixed point in the arrow of time, without which it is impossible for anything to coherently 'happen' over a period of *time* (because there is no time). For something to 'occur', it has to occur with a principle supporting its possibility. Possibility is incoherent without physical laws, as objective properties or actions are incoherent without limitation. It can be illustrated by the paradox of the stone, which admittedly does not disprove omnipotence, but illustrates how physical laws are necessary for anything to coherently have a 'cause' or beginning. Prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time. Sans these essential features of the universe, to speak of causality is incoherent. That the universe was caused is the primary assumption of deism, and without these properties, a caused universe is incoherent. b) Eternalism Another reason why the universe must be uncaused is the truth of Eternalism. For something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn't exist [5]. Under Eternalism change doesn't ontologically happen and therefore neither does causation [6]. William Lane Craig writes, "[o]n a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction." [7] Furthermore, the B-theory and eternalism entail lack of coherent temporal 'change'. J.M.E. McTaggart writes, "Changes must happen to the events of such a nature that the occurrence of these changes does not hinder the events from being events, and the same events, both before and after the change. Now what characteristics of an event are there which can change and yet leave the event the same event? (I use the word characteristic as a general term to include both the qualities which the event possesses, and the relations of which it is a term -- or rather the fact that the event is a term of these relations.) It seems to me that there is only one class of such characteristics -- namely, the determination of the event in question by the terms of the A series." [14] According to general relativity, space is 'stretchable'. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble's Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift [8]. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding [9]. General relativity also yields 'eternalism' or block universe, where the past, present and future are all equally real, and the passage of time is illusory via. the B-theory of time. General relativity models time as a 'fourth dimension' of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. "Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity." [10] If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent. In special relativity, each observer has their own 'plane of simultaneity', a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous [6]. "Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's. ... So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in 'the present'." [11] This entails eternalism. Therefore, temporal change and, thus, causation, are incoherent. Experiments from quantum mechanics have also vindicated Eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time [12]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don't exist in the present anymore. Other experiments show time is an emergent phenomenon. An outside observer would view the universe as static [13]. C3) Omniscience is an incoherent property There is reason to believe Eternalism is true via. God's nature. God is omniscient, he knows everything possible about the past, present and future. As philosopher David Kyle Johnson argues, for God's knowledge to be true, there must be the event which makes it true [15]. God's knowledge about something like, say, a cup on the table is made true by an existing cup on the table. If God's knowledge had no truthmakers, then his knowledge would be false. What then, makes God's knowledge about future or past events true? It would have to be the future or past event. However, since the future is causing God's knowledge it must exist. If the future is non-existent, there are no properties about the future. Making it impossible for God to know anything about it. This entails the future must exist, as well as the past. Eternalism is therefore implied via. God's omniscience. As we have shown above, eternalism and a caused universe cannot coexist. Making God's property of omniscience incompatible with his property of being a creator. C4) Non-cognitivism of 'greatness' With the argument from non-cognitivism, I will attempt to demonstrate that the term 'God' does not refer to a coherent concept. The property of 'greatness' is inherently subjective, with qualities that determine greatness dependant on the subject. One requires a standard for this conception of God to be considered omnipotent, i.e. all-powerful, where 'power' is the inherently subjective term, or 'perfect goodness', where objective perfection must be justified, and, in this case, greatness. For example, in a universe consisting of only a pencil, one cannot call the pencil a 'sharp' pencil, since the pencil lacks a standard to be justified objectively as sharp. Similarly, a property such as 'maximal greatness' requires a standard to be justified objectively, and sans such a standard, the concept of God as defined is incoherent. Thus, 'greatness' faces two basic problems: 1. A standard is required for the term 'greatness' to become meaningful. 2. 'Greatness', and what basically constructs it, is inherently subjective. For a being defined according to being great, the initial problem renders God meaningless unless an objective standard is present for greatness to be coherent. The latter renders God's very nature a matter of subjective decision, thus God's objective existence is not rationally justifiable, while "existence" depends on objective reality. An objective standard derived for God must either be (a) internal to God, or (b) external to God. The former begs the question and leads to God being self-defined, the latter is incoherent since God is transcendent, and sans the universe there is nothing which has objective reality except God (if he exists). Sources in comments. |
10 | a8a8a505-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required. What is the point of having children if you don't intend to raise them yourself? People should not have kids until they can afford them. And by "afford" I mean the financial ability to raise them in person. If you want to sponsor a child (i.e. pay for his food, necessities, schooling, etc.), you can sign up with any number of charities. If you want to raise a child, you must be present to do so. |
45 | 298a4e4e-2019-04-18T19:20:01Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | There is no better alternative for society than debt free currency Cons substantive contention is that debt free currency leads to inflation. The over supply of printed currency, counterfeiting, currency speculation, and the private lender's mismanagement of the fractional reserve system also contribute to inflation. We have empirical data on all of these contributors. The primary culprits generating and exacerbating inflation are those who speculate in currency.1 When a nation's debt burden is so high it can no longer service the debt, speculators hasten to bring down currency values.2 In the U.S., the Legal Tender Law of 1862 ushered in Greenbacks. They were legal tender and interest free and did not add to the national debt. Congress authorized only $450 million, of which fifty million replaced Treasury notes outstanding. The limitation on issue was Congress's way to control inflation and devaluation. Bankers did not mobilize against the new law which suspended convertibility of paper money created by the private banks into species. They had to wait until the beneficial effects of the new currency rescued their own positions in gold and brought the nation through the war. The suspension and banker's non-reaction to it showed that metallic backing of bank notes was a fiction - a fraud. For every dollar of credit lent, the banks were holding less than ten cents in gold. In effect, system wide, the debtors had not been loaned metal, but paper. Those banks pressing legal claims to have their paper redeemed with gold were all denied by the Supreme Court. The Greenback lost substantial value during the Civil War, since bills of credit were still redeemable in gold and Greenbacks were new to lenders and borrowers alike. However, by the mid-1870's Greenbacks were redeemable one-to-one with gold.3 Comparing a wartime inflation under a government run money system (Civil War) to wartime inflation under a private banker run system (WW1), Civil War historian J. G. Randall wrote: " The threat of inflation was more effectively curbed during the Civil War than during the First World War. Indeed as John K. Galbraith has observed, 'it is remarkable that without rationing, price controls, or central banking, Chase (Treasury Secretary under Lincoln) could have managed the federal economy so well during the Civil War.'"4 The confederacy had no limitation on the issuance of its currency, they had no central bank, and the currency was not legal tender; it was only redeemable for species two years after issue. Inflation was rampant and by the end of the war..."...$1 in a confederate note had depreciated from $.90 in gold to $.017 in gold by 1865, and by 1866 Confederate notes were worthless.5 Lerner's estimates depreciation are now considered high. Since the South supported free market-mercantilism it eschewed regulation of and impediments to the operation thereof. There were 38 private banks in the south during the Civil war and each had it's own currency and interest rates and while they were competitive among banks they were in no way designed to stabilize the supply of Confederate currency or specialized notes. Added to this profligate dispensation of legal tender was the rampant counterfeiting of all Confederate paper currencies. hence rampant inflation. Greenbacks could not be counterfeited because of special ink, paper and design. Today we have a system of public sanctioning of private control of currency. In return for that privilege "...we now have 99 percent of the U.S. money supply owed back to private lenders at interest. The result is a growing federal debt, on which the interest burden alone will soon be more than the taxpayers can afford to pay. The debt is impossible to repay in the pre-Copernican world in which money is created as a debt to private banks....we have allowed our money to rotate in the firmament around an elite class of financiers, when it should be rotating around the collective body of the people...interest free."6 There are a number of major modern economies where money creation aids new industries, social welfare, and does not only benefit the profit motives of lenders. Japan, Malaysia, China, India are but a few. Government creation of money and debt allows many of these countries to forgive internal debt but honor foreign debt. These are defacto debt free currency systems. The Japanese economic model that evolved in the twentieth century has been called a "state-guided market system." The state determines the priorities and commissions the work, then hires the private enterprise to carry it out. The model overcame the defects of the communist system, which put ownership and control in the hands of the state. Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, wrote in 1989 that the closest thing to the Japanese model in the U.S. is the military/industrial complex. The government determines the programs and hires private companies to implement them. The U.S. military/industrial complex is a form of state-sponsored capitalism that produces one of the most lucrative and successful industries in the country.7 The Japanese model was, by the end of the 1980's, regarded as the leading economic and banking power in the world. That model also proved successful for the "Tiger" economies--South Korea, Malaysia , etc. State guided capitalism provided for the general welfare without destroying capitalist incentive. High economic growth, rising social security, and universal education in a market economy - it was the sort of "Common Wealth" America's Founding Fathers had endorsed. But the model represented a major threat to the international bankers' system of debt-based money and IMF loans. To diffuse this threat, the Bank of Japan was pressured by Washington to take measures that would increase the yen's value against the dollar and reduce Japan's trade surplus with the U.S. The surplus was being used to fund social and economic development in Japan and in developing Asian countries.8 By 1987, the Bank of Japan (pressured by Washington) had cut interest rates to a low of 2.5 percent. The result was a flood of "cheap" money that was turned into quick gains on the rising Tokyo stock market, producing an enormous stock market bubble.9 Engdhal writes: "No sooner did Tokyo act to cool down the speculative fever, than the major Wall Street investment banks, led by Morgan Stanley and Salomon Bros. began using exotic derivatives to short the Japanese market. Within months Japanese stocks had lost nearly $5 trillion in paper value.10 In sum we cannot have in the same fiscal year, under the current system of borrowing at interest: national health care reform, rehabilitation of our infrastructure, free, private and public universal education, a modern fully resourced military, and fully funded research on cancer, heart disease, autism, etc. All of these "needs" can only be funded through existing public, state and local institutions with national, debt free currency issued by the Federal Government as provided for in the Constitution. (1. See, "The Web of Debt", p. 245) (2. Stephen Zarlenga, "The Lost Science of Money" The Mythology Of Money - The Story of Power. American Monetary Institute Charitable Trust, 2002) (3. E. G. Spauldinng, "A Resource of War", (repr.., CN:Greenwood, 1971), p.37. (4. J. G. Randall, "The Civil War and Reconstruction, edit. D. David, (Boston: Heath & Co. 1937, 2nd edition 1961), pp.3-11. (5. "E M. Lerner, in Milton Freidman's "Studies in the Quantity theory of Money, (Uiv. Chicago Press, 1956). (6. Ellen H. Brown, "The Web of Debt", Third Millennium Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2007.) (7. Chalmers Johnson, "How America's Crony Capitalists Ruined their Rivals," Los Angeles Times (May 7, 1999). (8 Ibid) (9.Ellen H. Brown, The Web of Debt, p253). (10. William Engdahl, "A Century of War" (New York: Paul & Co. 1993), page 229. |
43 | 824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00003-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned I believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, "Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. " [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. "In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. " states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any "unclean" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that "Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. " [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com) |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00007-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatising social security would improve economic growth Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."[1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA's social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: "While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts."[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/? |
14 | 15445a9d-2019-04-18T18:12:56Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. In this debate, the overarching themes that I'm going to focus on are morality (with a strong focus on consequentialism) and societal welfare. With this ideal in place, I will move on toward my contentions. Contention 1: Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical. Because bullying leads to negative effects for the individual as well as society and bullying as a result of sexual orientation is so heavily common, a piece of legislation from government focusing on sexual orientation is heavily preferrable. The resulting effects from such legislation show us the practicality, and analyzingSub-point 1a: Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects. Sexual orientation is certainly one of the largest reasons for bullying in the United States: "According to GLSEN's 2009 National School Climate Survey, which polled more than 7,000 self-identified gay and straight students between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one from all fifty states and the District of Columbia from 2008 to 2009, 61 percent of all students felt unsafe at school because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation whereas only 9.8 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their gender and 7.6 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their race or ethnicity (Kosciw et al. 2010). " The methodology of this survey, by the way, is legitimate considering the largeness of the sample and how widespread it is throughout the United States, but the actual population size of the United States is still 10 times larger than the sample size. Other surveys conclude the idea that this is a problem: "LGBT youth regularly face insidious verbal and physical abuse. A recent nationally representative survey of LGBT teens by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 84.6% of those surveyed had been verbally harassed, 40.1% had been physically harassed (pushed or shoved), and 18.8% had been physically assaulted (punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) because of his or her sexual orientation in the past year. " The effects that come from such bullying are incredibly negative: "The detrimental impact of this climate is apparent in the host of negative outcomes that attend gay youth: LGBT children and teenagers report dramatically higher levels of depression and anxiety, as well as decreased levels of self-esteem relative to their heterosexual peers. Of course, gay students are not inherently more likely to experience mental and physical harm; rather, it is "a direct result of the hatred and prejudice that surround[s] them. "Sub-point 1b: Legislation is effective, and alternatives are few. The many legislations in the United States after the suicides of 2010 prove the effectiveness of legislation against LGBT bullying: "Over the years, a small number of states have chosen to extend explicit protection to victims who are bullied based on enumerated personal characteristics. Although enumeration remains a minority position, the most recent spate of anti-bullying statutes offers a promising indication that this may be shifting. Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington—over half of the states enacting statutes in 2010—provide a list of prohibited bases for bullying behavior, including sexual orientation. These lists are uniformly nonexclusive,to highlight for teachers and school officials certain types of bullying as absolutely prohibited while still reaching bullying based on unlisted characteristics. New York's statute, for instance, encompasses but is not limited to "conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or abuse based on a person's actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. " Gay rights organizations strongly support enumeration, and research indicates that statutes that specifically identify sexual orientation as an impermissible target for bullying lead to a greater decrease in LGBT bullying than those statutes that do not. The Supreme Court, too, has stated that statutory "[e]numeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply. " Similar numbers of students report hearing homophobic remarks frequently in schools with non-enumerated anti-bullying laws (74.3% of students) as in those with no laws at all (75% of students). However, those enrolled in schools with enumerated policies experience less bullying, feel safer overall, and report that teachers are significantly more likely to intervene in instances of anti-gay bullying. These statistics underscore the tremendous potential for enumerated anti-gay bullying legislation to positively impact the lives of LGBT youth. " Alternatives are few and ineffective: "The impact of an unwelcoming school climate is aggravated for students who lack a protective buffer of social support. Studies showthat positive parental practices protect adolescents from involvement in both bullying perpetration and victimization, but sexual minority youth are less likely to receive this support at home. Approximately one third of gay and lesbian teens have suffered verbal abuse or physical violence from a family member as a consequence of coming out, and one half have experienced some form of parental rejection. Although some theorists argue that being an "anonymous and diffuse" minority is beneficial to sexual minorities, it can also make it more difficult for LGBT youth to identify similar individuals, particularly within their own age group. Facing rejection at home and school because of their sexual orientation, LGBT youth may experience a "narrow view of the options available to deal with recurrent family discord, rejection, or failure [that] contributes to a decision to commit suicide. "" Connolly, Lisa C. "Anti-Gay Bullying in Schools--Are Anti-Bullying Statutes the Solution? " New York University Law Review 87 (2012): 248-83. New York University. Web. <" target="blank">. http://www.law.nyu.edu......;. |
49 | 51d141db-2019-04-18T11:38:38Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1 1 Corinthians 12:12-17 "12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body"Jews or Greeks, slaves[a] or free"and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,[b] yet one body." This passage makes it CLEAR that though we are all a part of the body of Christ, we are all very different. If your foot decided on its own that only feet are a part of your body, and all the other "denominations" aren't, you would have serious issues. "21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. " Though it may sometimes seem like a different denomination is less of a Christian than you, truth be told BY GOD ALMIGHTY, those that we see as weak are indispensable! I also love that last verse, 27: "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. " We are INDIVIDUALLY members of Christ's body. You can not have a stigma against one or all denominations; according to God, it is up to the individual, NOT the Denomination. |
22 | 5a29cce2-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00011-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | An unnatural situation requires an artificial solution. If the species was in its natural habitat, it would be under conditions where it could be controllable - it would have a supply of what it naturally feeds on and there would be some way of keeping its population down, either predators, diseases or seasonal lulls in food supply. It is because it was moved that it has gone out of control. In an artificial situation, an artificial means needs to be employed to control it. |
23 | 7301ab1c-2019-04-18T14:05:34Z-00006-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering This debate was created due to a discussion in the forums which you can view here: . http://www.debate.org...Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources (1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk... |
8 | 6141ed46-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Should Financial abortion "This debate is about if Financial abortion should be legal or not." That's what you wanted to debate. If abortion weren't legal in all but extraordinary cases, financial abortion would not be either. |
29 | eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic. |
2 | e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00001-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke. |
24 | 4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Corporate taxes should be lowered Because recession is such a general term, let me narrow to the part I'm trying to show you. You make an important point that taxes are lowered if they relocate overseas, especially to China or Japan. This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does. Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits. Corporations do this to avoid corporate taxes, and take their business somewhere that doesn't normally have corporate taxes like we do. And if corporations have had lower taxes than they have 40-50 years ago (which is somewhat true), then why are they shipping jobs overseas? Because they're not low enough. And why is this such a big deal? Because the more money made, the higher the tax rate is and corporations make a lot of money. The IRS reports that since 1988, the tax rate per income began to fluctuate and people with lower incomes started to be taxed at a higher percentage than those making more (to this day). They got tired of this, and since then began to relocate to countries with cheap labor and low or no taxes. Since the late 1980s, this caused a whole range of economic problems which can be obvious when seen. It's no coincidence that the countries that we owe trade deficits with are the ones that corporations decided to relocate to. As for my sources, did you not see the entire article filled with 10 benefits of lower corporate taxes? And what "program" are you talking about? And yes I do agree with the long-term health of the economy, which means that we have the same goals. We have different theories on how to meet them however, and if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit because more people would make demands. It's simple math. If the tax rate was 8% for a candy bar, only 1 person would want to buy it. But if the rate was 4% then 3 people would want to buy it, so the government would be making 4% more if the taxes were lower. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.americanprogress.org... |
28 | 5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US My opponent has stated in round 1 that he does not wish to have forfeiters, yet forfeits anyways. Excellent. |
28 | 94b6b4c-2019-04-18T11:10:45Z-00006-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized So most of your rebuttal here is about how legalizing prostitution would be dangerous for women because pimps and brothels will appear because first of all those totally don't already exist and if you actually read my argument you would have realized that should prostitution become legal the prostitutes will have someone to rely on they will finally be able to call the cops if they've been abused. You also said that prostitutes make bad money? Have you looked at the numbers, In low end brothels prostitutes make upwards of 300 dollars a day? Some prostitutes even charge upwards of 1000 dollars for a customer for an hour or more. Finally you said that NO ONE wants to be a prostitute. . . . So you can speak for the world? No one wants to be a porn star? |
46 | f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00007-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Network Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP's (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn't be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like "equal treatment" and "ending discrimination in transmitting content," all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn't accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to 'end discrimination in transmitting content?' Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let's say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let's expand this example to an entire community. ISP's being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn't because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it 'protects freedom of speech' through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn't caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP's to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don't have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the 'freedom of speech' claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in 'greater freedom of speech' is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn't exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn't want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China's strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen's Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that "under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day" [5]. Don't misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast's blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP's to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP's to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP's pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn't. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor's content or specific sites it doesn't want to give access to. In fact, it's good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP's actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn't infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don't have, they aren't paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com... |
43 | d4007386-2019-04-18T15:20:15Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | YouTube should be banned! Youtube should absolutely not be banned. You've said that it is integrating itself into our daily life and it's educating our youth. Where is the downside? Youtube is globalizing education and entertainment. It's a great way to spread knowledge and will probably lead education in 3rd world countries through the Google Loon. (http://www.google.com...) As far as I can see Youtube has only positive effects and will be incredibly beneficial to 3rd world countries. |
10 | 3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school." BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu... |
23 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Choose any Topic!!!! Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1]) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia. " However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4] The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? " From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. " From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. " From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5] You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South [7] and [8] Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9] For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10] Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " "it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. " [11] This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. As per rules, and character limitations, my soures will be in the following debate link. (. http://www.debate.org...) |
9 | aa02d263-2019-04-18T13:53:11Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Should Students Have To Wear Mandatory Uniforms Since my opponent has failed to attempted to negate my argument I will not propose a new argument. |
4 | ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00003-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punsihment for children O Observations My opponents title: 1."Corporal punsihment for children" Has the word punishment misspelled. 2.We will be focusing on corporal punishment in schools "This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools". I am free to assume that there's no corporal punishment outside of school and vice versa. 3.I can begin in round one "My opponent will start this debate with his arguments" O Burden of Proof Is equal. O Definitions Corporal Punishment: "physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority." Dictionary.com Child: "a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children." Dictionary.com O Notes Interestingly my opponent said "Corporal punsihment for children". That's right we're talking about punishment for children and not against them. One must realize that corporal punishment and child abuse are two different things .One acts as an attention getter in a controlled atmosphere, while the other is used intentionally to harm the child in a physical manner. My opponent may not under any circumstances say what kind of corporal punishment I support. In this debate you have mentioned no specifics hence I get to add my own details. O Arguments 1. Quick and Effective Corporal punishment is quick and effective. I don't think that this can be argued. 2. Being Spoiled Undisciplined children are in danger of becoming tyrants. Todays society is a good example: http://www.leaderu.com... 3. Parents We can argue until the bears take over this site but ultimately its our parents choice: " Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an "opt-out" system. In others an "opt-in" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent." http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you |
49 | 6cbdf87a-2019-04-18T17:46:54Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Homework should be mandatory. Homework helps the teacher and the student in a school. Homework helps the student because the student understands the lecture the teacher gave better. Homework can also show if you know the topic or not. If you figure out you do not know the topic, you can ask your teacher. Homework helps the teacher because the teacher has less stress. When the student does the homework, and they get everything right, the teacher knows that the student understands the topic clearly. This can also notify that a student doesn't know the topic, and he or she will be helped. Homework also helps students on tests. When a student does his or her homework, he or she understands the topic and will do well on the test. Homework is good for everyone is a school environment. |
23 | 443158c1-2019-04-18T18:43:38Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2) I will begin by refuting pro's arguments and then providing my own proof as to why PAS should be illegal. *****REFUTATIONS*****1. "A physician's duty to his/her patients is simple: to relieve (as much as possible) his/her patient's suffering, as well as preserve the dignity of said patient [1]. If a person with a terminal and painful illness is barely mobile, cannot feed his/herself, but can request to be assisted in suicide by a physician, and the physician refuses due to it being unlawful, then his/her duty isn't being met. The patient is clearly suffering to some capacity (even with pain medication, psychological anguish is present), as well as being robbed of his/her dignity, having to lie in a bed, as others must do things for him/her. "While derived from a source, I respectfully disagree with my opponent's interpretation of a physicians duty. A physician's duty is neither to relieve as much suffering as possible or preserve the dignity of the patient. A physician's ultimate duty is to prevent death through curing or retarding the progression of ailments. That is the first and foremost reason for the medical system. WHY? :1. This is the historical and universal hippocratic oath of all medical professionals: a. derived from the classical hipporatic oath ". .. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. .. " [1] b. derived from the modern hippocratic oath "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. " [2] Therapeutic nihilism is the belief that an ailment cannot be cured. Hence, it is implied that the oath taken by all physicians and the duty to that effect is to always try to cure one's patient. The option of killing the patient is contrary to this sworn oath. Hence, I would like the readers to extract from these excerpts the point: A physician's ultimate duty is to prevent death through curing or retarding the progression of ailments. They must always try and try again to cure the ailment. Assisting the death of a patient would infringe upon that duty and obligation. 2. "Any person, whether a medical patient or not, owns his/her body, as well as life. Therefore, he/she also has the right to do with his/her body and life as he/she fits"This point does not have much relevance or merit in this particular debate. Pro can use this contention in a debate regarding suicide legality. However, this debate is about physicians, the one's we trust most to help us live, assisting suicide. Since the patients are not making the absolute individual desicion and execution of ending their own life, it is done by someone else, pro's point that is quoted above has no relevance. It only applies to those who kill themselves independently. It is a different atmosphere when a physician helps this act. 3. "Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [2]. This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [3]. I'd like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn't before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [4]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Once more, I'd like to go back to my hypothetical. Let's say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn't wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/he be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well. "My opponent is basically saying that physician assisted suicide should be legal because it saves the families' money. I will not argue against the fact that PAS could save families money on funerals, but I will point out that this is only one practical benefit. I will prove in the following contentions that the moral and practical drawbacks heavily outweigh this one practical benefit. It will hence become my proof that if it is, on the grand scale, both impractical and immoral to legalize PAS, then it should not be legal. *****PROOF OF MY POSITION*****Physician Assisted Suicide is Immoral and Impractical1. It demeans the value of a human life. Death, in this modern age, is sometimes taken lightly by those who do not fully understand its impact on their beings, life, and the people around them. It is the ultimate duty of a physician to protect and defend life. Death cannot be used as a means of escape or an easier option for a physician than working vigorously to cure and help the patient. " . .. human life means something. .. To stomp out a life because it's not convenient or it's expensive demeans that value. " [3]2. Physicians are not always correct and can make mistakes or simply do immoral things. In such events, a life can be lost through PAS when such was unnecessary. Legalizing PAS opens the door to such accidents. At an unfortunately consistent rate, doctors misdiagnose their patients. Who's to say that a man or woman won't kill themselves once they mistakenly hear they have cancer? We cannot allow such accidents to even have this slim gateway of possibility. A human life is too dear to risk the possibility of such tragic occurrences ESPECIALLY since that risk isn't critically necessary. Physicians can also be immoral, they may tell their patients that they will die painfully and prompt them to accept PAS when that is not necessary. We cannot allow these possibilities to come to fruition. The best way to ensure this is to keep PAS illegal.3. The government and ensurance companies could also use PAS for immoral purposes. They could pressure physicians to suggest PAS because it would be less expensive and more efficient, when there other are options for the patient. My opponent himself made it a point to outline the financial benefit of suicide. It is a dangerous possibility that companies and the government could manipulate this financial gain for themselves. Keeping PAS illegal would, for the most part, nullify this threat. 4. My opponent said, "provided that his/her decision hasn't been influenced by anything other than his/her own personal judgment"Pain is a form of influence. Pain and pressure can influence people to do things that they may not really want. When a patient is under the influence of suffering and pain, his mind becomes fixated on alleviating that pain at all costs. It is not fair to the patient to readily accept his decisions while under such pressure. It is only the decisions made under more placid conditions that truly reflect the genuine desires of people. Hypothetical situation: A man/woman with cancer will probably experience tremendous pain. He/she may also have a family to take care of. With PAS as an open option, while the patient is not thinking clearly and just wants to feel at ease, he may abandon whatever children or family he/she has waiting at home and choose suicide. The man/woman will have died in vain, because had that pain not clouded his/her judgement, he/she may have chosen to live. Now you have an unnecessary death, and a heartbroken family. Now my opponent could ammend his resolution to say that PAS should be legal when the patient is not influenced by pain, but that would not make sense either. If a patient is not experiencing pain, then out of respect for the value of a human life, and a physician's oath, there would be no justification for administering PAS. SOURCES*read comments |
50 | dca59d39-2019-04-18T20:00:26Z-00003-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | minimum wage should exist "Why in the world would you be for this? I could go into to so MUCH detail to show you why you are wrong, but I am going to make it simple. Minimum wage is wrong because every owner of a store or shop or restaurant should be able to pay his employees whatever he wants. It is clear that then there would be a competition for who would be able to get employees because he or she would have the best salaries. If everyone had the same there would be no competition for business which would bring nothing to top which would destroy the stock market! Think about that." One argument I forgot to make. There's an abundance of unskilled labor out there. So much in fact, that empiracally, employers can and do pay employees beans without a minimum. That's exploitation. Imagine a giant owning everything... all he has to do is make the peons fight for peanuts, and that's what happens today effectively. You have no right to take advantage of people, because everyone deserves a minimum if they are working something substantial. Please respond to this by addressing the giant who exploits peons, and the analogies I posted above about equal access to the earth's resources. I could foresee you arguing that they can move up if they don't want to be paid that amount. As I've argued, some can, others can't. If the job is still worth it by paying a minimum wage that the employer is still willing to do it, it should be paid minimum. It's about fairness with the reasoning above that I asked you to respond to. Also, I addressed your point about competition. There's no competion amoung employers for people at the minimum wage. In fact, if your argument were true, there'd be no need for the minimum wage. This is empiracally proven false, because the minimum wage exists and is used. They only compete by giving minor increments above the wage as the person progresses in experience.... if they weren't giving minor increases at a mandated level as they are now, they'd be doing it at much lower as they did in the 80s as I showed. It's all minimum wage terrirory, so by setting the wage at a livable level, the terriroy itself would remain livibale. Otherwise you'd have many living perhaps not at minimum exactly, but in minimum territory of an unlivable level. I don't believe you really read my post, because I addressed all your points, and you ahve not responded to any of the reasoning specifically, but rather simply returned my points with blanket assertions that have already been addressed. |
48 | c72b8976-2019-04-18T12:48:04Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The dominance of two major political parties in the U.S presidential elections undermines democracy. Affirmative Case #2: The Electoral College: An Undemocratic Tool of the Two Party System This case argues that the dominance of the two-party system functions through the Electoral College to undermine American democratic ideals. The Electoral College itself, as well as the "winner take all" voting rule used by most states, makes Americans fundamentally unequal as voters in presidential elections. Citizens of large states have much greater influence than citizens of small states. In extreme cases this had led to, and threatens to lead to, the election of presidents who are not the choice of the people. As such I must affirm: "Resolved: The dominance of two major political parties in the U.S presidential elections undermines democracy." For today"s round I offer the following value of "Democracy". No principle is more fundamental to the theory of democratic governance than political equality; the idea that every citizen"s voice or views should count as much as anyone else"s. The current system violates this principle, due to its "winner take all" nature. In a close election, voters in one or more of the battleground states may determine the outcome of the contest. To support my value I offer the following criterion of "Consent of the Governed". Legitimacy justifies and transforms the power of government through a moral authority derived from the consent of both the governed and the governing of both the existence and justness of existing order. Legitimacy is, therefore, an essential aspect of a regime"s stability because this moral authority forms the basis of its legal and political authority. Legitimacy persuades the majority of the people to accept the status quo, to follow laws enacted by the government. Observation One: "The Two-Party System is Intertwined with the Electoral College." Many proponents argue that the Electoral College encourages a two-party system. There is no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two-party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough states to have of chance of winning the presidency. In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitionary third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in Congress) is to virtually force third-party candidates into either one of the two major parties. Contention One: "The Electoral College Undermines Democracy by Violating Equal Treatment of All Citizens." Within the enormous and often impenetrable thicket of ideas about democracy, is it possible to identify some criteria that a process for governing an association would have to meet in order to satisfy the requirement that all the members are all equally entitled to participate in the association"s decisions about its policies? In his book, On Democracy, Robert Dahl believe that there were five such standards, but I will be talking about two. The first being effective participation. Before a policy is adopted by the association, all members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other members as to what the policy should be. And the last being voting equality. When the moment arrives at which the decision about policy will finally be made, every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. In arriving at decisions, the government must give equal considerations to the good and interests of every person bound by these decisions. Sub-Point A: "The Electoral College Does Not Count the Votes of Citizens Equally." The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two "bonus" electors representing its two senators. Contention Two: "The Electoral College Violates Democracy by Threatening the Consent of the Governed." Perhaps most importantly, losing the popular vote threatens a President"s legitimacy. Allowing a president to win office despite losing the popular vote is contrary to America"s time-honored principles of majoritarian democracy. Akhil Amar predicted in 1995 that, "one day, we will end up with a clear loser President--clear beyond any quibbles about uncertain ballots. And the question is, will this loser/winner be seen as legitimate at home and abroad?" Instances where a popular vote loser prevails in the Electoral College are "fraught with danger". The legitimacy and governability of a president without the popular vote majority is prima facie suspect. A system that does not include direct expression of the voice of the people undermines the principle of a government with the consent of the governed. Electing a president who loses the popular vote undermines the respect for the system and compromises the new president"s mandate to govern. Sub-Point A: "The Electoral College Results in Choosing Presidents Who Are Not the Choice of the Electorate." In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as a layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses. There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility to a set of individual electors. Hundreds of thousands of votes can and have been violated by an individual sector, choosing to act on his or her own behalf instead of the behalf of the people. As of the 2008 election, since the founding of the Electoral College, a 157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates that they were designed to represent. The Electoral College creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This has happened at least 4 times out of the 56 presidential elections, or more than 7% of the time, which is not such a small percentage, and it created a hideous mess every time. Sub-Point B: "The Electoral College Disenfranchises Voters, Undermining Democratic Legitimacy." The Electoral College system distorts every presidential campaign in a variety of ways and holds at least the potential (it"s more than potential, it has happened several times) to lead to a result that undermines the democratic legitimacy of the election. The Electoral College is also responsible for disenfranchising, in effect, huge swaths of American voters. A single national popular or "constituency" vote would determine the president based on who won the most votes total across the country. The great majority of American voters exercise no real political voice in the outcome of presidential elections. In closing, Judge you can see time and time again within my case the my criterion of "Consent of the Governed" is violated by the Electoral College which is a democratic institution. You can also see how the Electoral College is intertwined with the presidential elections, all of these instances point towards a clear cut fact, the two-party system through manipulating the Electoral College undermines democracy. So, you must affirm here. Thank you, I am now open for cross-examination and points of clarification. |
19 | 6335c4fa-2019-04-18T13:04:41Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage MARRIAGE My opponent says that I did not explain why I believe marriage should be between man and woman only, and why gay marriage is not considered valid. However, I believe I explained myself quite well between both my round 2 and 3 arguments. - I believe I explained myself quite well when talking about the traditional marriage of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. In my round 2 argument, I stated that a mother and father are needed in a child's life. I also mentioned that research shows that children with gay parents (two men, or two women) will not be as successful or well-educated (A). If I am not mistaken, I am pretty sure this backs my argument of why I believe marriage should be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. *note* My opponent did not make any further arguments, all she did was point out arguments I made and call them wrong. My definition of marriage did not contradict any arguments that I made, it was simply stating that there is a difference between traditional marriage and gay marriage (according to the dictionary). -My opponent pointed out that I said, "traditional marriage is the backbone of the United States and our founding fathers were Christians". I am not sure where she pulled the last part from. At no point, and I repeat NO point, did I ever say the founding fathers were Christians. I encourage the voters to reread my arguments. I never said the founding fathers were Christians, I said they were fearful of the Lord and followed the Bible. That does not mean you are a Christian. The United States was not founded upon Christianity, our 1st amendment does not allow the establishment of a religion. But, instead, the United States was founded upon Christian morals. "In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. "(B)My opponent went on a rant saying that even if the founding fathers were Christians, they do not have to follow their own views. Then goes on to say that many Christians are in support for gay marriage. Let me enlighten my opponent. If you support gay marriage, you are not a Christian. So that "rise" in the number of "christians" supporting gay marriage is illegitimate. Those are false Christians. Let me share a verse with you. "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. " 2 Timothy 3:16This basically says that all scripture in the Bible, even the scripture about homosexuality, is true and God-breathed. So you are not a Christian if you support same-sex marriage, because we all know what the Bible says about it. And true Christians use the Bible. -My opponent uses the Washington Post as an article to show research that children growing up with gay parents are "measure up" to their peers. The Washington Post is heavily Liberal and biased. Here is some research that contradicts my opponents source. "Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves. And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, attempt suicide, experience domestic violence and sexual assault, and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans. " (C)2. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICEI believe this line by my opponent is a desperate attempt to save herself: "However, he provides absolutely no scientific evidence that being gay is a choice or even that God is real. "I believe I did provide scientific evidence. I encourage the voters to look back at my round 3 argument, in bold you will see a entire experiment conducted saying homosexuality is a choice (D). The second part of what she said is completely irrelevant. I encourage my opponent to friend me, and we can then proceed to debate on whether God is real or not. -Homosexuality is a choice, my opponent thinks it is an absurd argument to claim that homosexuality is learned. She claims I said it was disease to be gay, or that being gay is contagious. I mentioned you are not born a racist or sexist. Neither of these are diseases or contagious. I am not sure where she got the whole "disease" things, seems to be a manipulation of words. Answer to question 1) I believe that if you want to be gay, you are considering the consequences and sacrifices that may follow. Just a as thief would consider the consequence of going to prison if they were caught. Gays or lesbians do not have to be gay or lesbian. Answer to question 2) This is a personal question so I will answer with a personal answer that has nothing to do with the debate. I chose to be straight because I am a follower of Christ, and homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Lord. 3. EQUALITY-My opponent tries to claim that the LGBT community was unequal before the Supreme Court ruling in 2015. I believe that everyone is equal in that we are all given the same right by the Lord and our government, life. Life is all we need to be equal. Nothing is ever "fair" in life. All men are CREATED equal, when we are created we have life - nothing else. We are not guaranteed anything for sure on this earth, and to claim you are unequal because you cannot marry the person you love makes no sense. People, just be happy you are alive. Answer to opponent) If my opponent is not aware, just recently a woman's religious rights were affected because of the unjust ruling by the Supreme Court. Her name was Kim Davis and she was a Democratic County Clerk in Kentucky. Here is an article relating to this horrible incident (E). There are many other examples of Christians, such as myself, being affected by the LGBT community. Here is how the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 could affect religious institutions (F). CLOSING STATMENTMy entire stance on gay marriage is fully supported by my faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible. However, science and research will also show you that homosexuality is not safe for future generations. Lies are being given by the LGBT community, trying to convince the population that homosexuality is not a choice. Look at the research. It is a choice. It is a learned behavior. The traditional marriage between one man and one woman is the backbone of the United States. Our founders of this great nation are on the anti-LGBT side, look at what they have said about homosexuality and try to dispute that. Let's preserve this nation for what it was founded upon. Let's "make America great again". Thank you to my opponent for providing arguments which made this a quality, informative debate. Best of luck. Thank you! (A). http://discussingmarriage.org...(B)http://www.heritage.org...(C)http://ic.galegroup.com...(D)http://www.independent.co.uk...(E)http://insider.foxnews.com...(F)http://www.pewresearch.org... |
26 | 7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | standardized testing should be eliminated Positive Aspects of Standardized Testing 1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it. The outcome is more efficient instructional time and a simplified way of timeline management. 2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally. This can also indicate how your local area is doing compared against the national landscape. You need standardized testing to see where the problems are. Without the level knowledge that it gives, certain problems won't be recognized and dealt with. 3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. 4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years. When students take the same type of test yearly, which is adjusted for grade level, it is easy to see if a student is improving, degrading, or not changing. This assesses the teacher and the child. 5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. 6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question. According to the new York times. Standardized testing simply makes education more stable, level, cheap, adaptable, and allows for better assessment. |
29 | 88b57bbb-2019-04-15T20:22:55Z-00022-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2. 1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011 2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011 |
22 | 9058833c-2019-04-18T15:42:19Z-00006-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Resolved: The Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Purposial. This debate shall be about these two pieces of satire. The Unwind series by Neal Shusterman and A Modest Purposial by Johnathan Swift. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Pro while Con will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Pro will make contentions and rebuttles, while Con Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Pro makes rebuttles and conclusion, Con will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Con says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling |
47 | e5aef097-2019-04-18T17:02:59Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework in schools should be banned Hello worthy contender. I put my arguments down in clear points. 1. Well homework, meant to be done at home, takes over the worthy time which can be better used in broadening one's mind behind books and enhancing one's physical stature. Homework confines our thinking and working abilities to only what is taught in school, whereas instead of homework, research work turns out to be more beneficial. 2. When students are given home work, they are meant to revise what is taught in school. Now suppose they are not given any homework, they'll be encouraged to pay attention in class more, and this will undoubtedly increase the concentration power. 3. Homework makes a child dull compelling her to look only through the doors shown to her. 4. Homework, is an improved way of spoon feeding a child, because a child is always helped at home, by parents or professional tutors. A student needs to apply and not mug up. Great people or rather scientist do not mug up things, they apply concepts and experience.5.Takes too much time Especially when you move to higher classes students have a lot od different classes and different homework assignments to finish. When adding all off them it takes a lot of time. Students need time for other extracurricular activities and family time. Homework could potentially be a time consuming activity for many. 6. Homework should be banned I swear most of the time i am stressed and 99% its because of homework. I dont want to be the typical teen who says "i hate homework its so boring and im so lazy" but its so true. And in my school they either give you little bit of homework with lots of hard parts for it or on HUGE project or assignment on top of other homework from other classes. I can not even explain how angry homework gets me. Sometimes there are group assignments and there is never a time where im not paired with the lazy people so i end up doing all the crap and i have to worry about other classes too. NO. I can not. I need a break and i hate when teachers pack the most work on weekends. But no I have to use my only two days of rest on assignments on top of other work that im mentally crying about. Do not even get me started. I legitimately cried like two hours ago becuase all the homework i have to do. And thats not a good thing. School is supposed to be "a fun learning experience" and "learning and doing good and no stress" This site will prove my point: http://www.education.com...Best of luck. |
12 | 7c48bf09-2019-04-18T16:59:10Z-00001-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | birth control in high school i think birth control is very high in high school they are all too young and they are making the wrong choses and they should really think about there choses because if they have a babie in high school then they have to drop out and then they have to get a crappy job to take care of that babie so there fore there should not be any birth control in high school |
15 | 4302d5e8-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Pinapatunayan ng Bibliya ang PAPACY Salamat po sa inyong sagot.Eto po yung aking mga counter-arguments:1.) Susi ng kaharian ng langit - napansin ko po na nag-aassume ka na kay Pedro lamang ibinigay yung susi. Pero kung papansinin mo yung parehong Mateo 16:18 at Mateo 18:18, makikita mo na ang mismong kapangyarihan ng sinasabi mong susi ay ipinagkaloob din sa ibang apostol. Narito po ang mga talata:(Mateo 18:18)Katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo, na ang lahat ng mga bagay na inyong talian sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit: at ang lahat ng mga bagay na inyong kalagan sa lupa ay kakalagan sa langit. (Mateo 16:19)Ibibigay ko sa iyo ang mga susi ng kaharian ng langit: at anomang iyong talian sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit; at anomang iyong kalagan sa lupa ay kakalagan sa langit.Ano po ba ang epekto ng susi ng kaharian ng langit? Diba ito yung "pagkalag at pagtali"? Eh sa Mateo 18:18 po, hindi naman sinabi na "anumang talian sa lupa ay tatalian sa langit kung kayo ay kaisa lamang ni Pedro. Si Pedro ay itinangi lamang sa Mateo 16:18 dahil inamin niya na si Jesus ang Cristo, ang Anak ng Diyos na Buhay. Ngunit katulad ng sasabi ko na mga talata tungkol sa kapantayan ng mga apostol, makikita natin na si Pedro ay hindi naman ganun kataas. Maaaring mayroon siyang kapamahalaan, ngunit hindi nga po ito absolute. Halimbawa, dun sa nauna kong example sa Galacia 2:11-14, pinatunayan ko na si Pablo ay may kakayahang suwayin ang nasabing "Santo Papa" na dapat hindi nagkakamali tungkol sa doktrina. Doon din sa Lucas 9:46-48, itinuturo na pantay pantay dapat ang mga apostol, sapagkat ang sinumang iniaangat ang sarili niya ay gagawing pinakamababa. Ito ang mali sa Papacy, isang tao ang iniangat sa isang posisyong hindi naman talaga ninais ni Jesus.2.) Si Cristo ang Bato - hindi maaaring si Pedro ang maging bato na sinasabi ni Jesus, kundi ang kaniyang sarili. Ang mga salitang "at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang aking iglesia", ang sinasabing "bato" ay ang "pinagsasaligan" o "foundation" ng magiging iglesia dahil ito'y itatayo sa ibabaw nito. Bakit ito importante? Dahil SI CRISTO LANG ANG PINAGSASALIGAN, AT WALANG SINUMANG TAO ANG MAKAPAGLALAGAY NG PUNDASYONG ITO. Mababasa sa 1 Corinto 3:11 ang sumusunod:"Sapagka't sinoman ay hindi makapaglalagay ng ibang pinagsasaligan, kundi ang nalalagay na, na ito'y si Cristo Jesus." 1 Corinto 3:11 AB1905Ibig sabihin, ang tanging pundasyon ng iglesia ay si Cristo Jesus at walang ibang tao ang makakapaglagay ng ibang pundasyon. Importante ito dahil kailangan ang siyang bato na ginagamit natin na pundasyon ay matibay, katulad ng pagsasabi ninyong mga Katoliko na si Pedro ang naging "batong pundasyon". Tandaan, tao lang si Pedro, at kung bato man siya, siya ay marupok katulad nga ng mga kakulangan niya. Makikita din natin na dapat ang bato ay matibay, na kahit anong mangyari ay walang mangyayari sa kung anuman ang nakatayo dito. Mababasa natin sa Mateo 7:24-27 kung ano dapat ang katangian ng nasabing bato:24 Kaya't ang bawa't dumirinig ng aking mga salitang ito at ginaganap, ay matutulad sa isang taong matalino, na itinayo ang kaniyang bahay sa ibabaw ng bato: 25 At lumagpak ang ulan, at bumaha, at humihip ang mga hangin, at hinampas ang bahay na yaon; at hindi nabagsak: sapagka't natatayo sa ibabaw ng bato. 26 At ang bawa't dumirinig ng aking mga salitang ito at hindi ginaganap, ay matutulad sa isang taong mangmang, na itinayo ang kaniyang bahay sa buhanginan: 27 At lumagpak ang ulan, at bumaha, at humihip ang mga hangin, at hinampas ang bahay na yaon; at nabagsak: at kakilakilabot ang kaniyang pagkabagsak. - Mateo 7:24-27 AB1905Ang pagiging isang pundasyon ng iglesia ay isang napakahalagang obligasyon, kaya dapat ang sinumang maging pundasyon ay hindi matitinag o masusuway: ang ang tanging tao na kilala ko ay ang siyang Diyos din na tunay: ang Panginoong Jesus. Siya lamang talaga ang nararapat na maging "Bato" kung saan itatayo niya ang kaniyang iglesia.Ang aking huling punto para sa debate na ito kung bakit hindi maaaring si Pedro ang unang Santo Papa: sa mga babala tungkol sa mga pagtalikod, walang sinasabi na "sumangguni kay Pedro sapagkat siya ang Santo Papa". Basahin natin ang mga talata:2 Timoteo 4:2-52 Ipangaral mo ang salita; magsikap ka sa kapanahunan, at sa di kapanahunan, sumawata ka, sumaway ka, mangaral ka na may buong pagpapahinuhod at pagtuturo. 3 Sapagka't darating ang panahon na hindi nila titiisin ang magaling na aral; kundi, pagkakaroon nila ng kati ng tainga, ay magsisipagbunton sila sa kanilang sarili ng mga gurong ayon sa kanilang sariling mga masasamang pita; 4 At ihihiwalay sa katotohanan ang kanilang mga tainga, at mga ibabaling sa katha. 5 Nguni't ikaw ay magpigil sa lahat ng mga bagay, magtiis ka ng mga kahirapan, gawin mo ang gawa ng evangelista, ganapin mo ang iyong ministerio. Sa talatang ito, sinasabi ni Pablo kay Timoteo na pigilan niya ang mga hindi makikinig!1 Timoteo 5:19-2219 Laban sa matanda ay huwag kang tatanggap ng sumbong, maliban sa dalawa o tatlong saksi. 20 Sila na mga nagkakasala ay paalalahanan mo sa harapan ng lahat upang ang iba nama'y mangatakot. 21 Pinagbibilinan kita sa paningin ng Dios, at ni Cristo Jesus, at ng mga anghel na hinirang, na iyong ganapin ang mga bagay na ito na walang pagtatangi na huwag mong gagawin ang anomang pagayo. 22 Huwag mong ipatong na madalian ang iyong mga kamay sa kanino man, ni huwag kang makaramay sa mga kasalanan ng iba: ingatan mong malinis ang iyong sarili. Sa talatang ito, bagamat may mga problema sa lugar kung nasaan sila, hindi nila ito ipinapaalam sa "Santo Papa", bagamat ito'y isang problemang tungkol sa iglesia.Kung inyo pong papansinin, wala pong pagkakataon sa Bible na talagang nagpapatunay na si Pedro ang Santo Papa at ang konsepto ng papacy. Puro assumption lang ang mga interpretasyon na ginagawa ng mga Katoliko para patunayan na si Pedro ang Santo Papa. Ilang beses ko na po inuulit, pero si Cristo lamang ang atin bato, ang ating pundasyon, ang ating pinuno at ulo ng iglesia.Magandang araw po. |
42 | ff9d7dd1-2019-04-18T17:27:12Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | 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 | 6702c0e0-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00003-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Judges please note: This round is exclusively for arguments; After a thorough research I will try to quote experts who have extensively dealt with the subject of abortion. Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that choosing abortion is a woman's right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option. Although the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). [1] A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). [2] The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [3] The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [4] Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [5] [6]Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wadestates that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [7] A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [8] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.[9] Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. [10] Many religious organizations and people of faith support women's reproductive choice.Although many religious groups oppose abortion, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations are all officially pro-choice. [11] [12] [13] The Bible, despite interpretations to the contrary, contains no explicit condemnation of abortion, and does not portray the killing of a fetus as equivalent to the killing of a human being. In Exodus 21:22-25, the crime of causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, whereas killing the woman is considered murder and is punished with the death penalty. [14] While the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). [15] Joe Biden, 47th US Vice President, stated in Oct. 2012 that "I accept my church's position on abortion... But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others..." [16] SOURCES [1] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org [2] E.G. Raymond and D.A. Grimes, "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, [3] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Medical Association, "Brief of Amici Curiae [in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services et al. v. Attorney General Gregory Abbot et al.]," acog.org, [4] Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, [5]Franklin Foer, "Fetal Viability," slate.com, [6] James Davison Hunter, Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War, 1994 [7] Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, [8] Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado.gov [9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Home" (159 KB) [10] John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005) [11]General Board of Church & Society of the United Methodist Church, "Family Planning and Reproductive Health - Social Principles," umc-gbcs.org, 2008 [12]General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church (USA), "Presbyterian 101 - Abortion Issues," gamc.pcusa.org (accessed Feb. 25, 2011) [13]Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, "Right to Choose," uua.org, June 3, 2010 [14] Rick Lowery, PhD, "Abortion: What the Bible Says (and Doesn't Say)," huffingtonpost.com, [15] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org, [16] John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005) [20]Ezra Klein, "Transcript: The 2012 VP Debate," washingtonpost.com, |
19 | 4ce3fccf-2019-04-18T16:32:51Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | America Should Legalize Gay marriage Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate her on this subject! This is my first debate on gay marriage, so I hope to have fun and learn!An apologyMy apologies for accidentally calling my opponent a "he" when she's actually a "she." This is like the third time I've accidentally done this within the past week. I'm afraid it's becoming a habit for me to accidentally put my foot in my mouth. :( I shall now take some time to refute each of my opponent's arguments, and then present some of my own.The happiness argumentMy opponent claims that "to prevent GLBT from marrying is a withdrawal of one of our natural rights, the right to pursuit happiness." However, this is not true. We are not forbidding GLBT from living together, or having a life-long relationship. Rather, we are simply not recognizing their relationship in the same way we recognize traditional marriage.My opponent also argues that GLBT are being discriminated against. However, there is no discrimination here. I am not arguing that GLBT shouldn't be allowed to marry. Rather, I am arguing that what marriage is, is different. It's absurd to say "Not allowing blind people to drive is discriminating against them." I'm not depriving certain individuals from gay marriage, I am arguing that no one has the right to gay marriage. Moods, alcohol, anxietyMy opponent also commits a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Simply because something happens after something else, we cannot infer that it is because of it. B may follow A, but that doesn't mean A caused B. (1)My opponent must demonstrate that there is a causal relation between gay marriage and moods, alcohol abuse, and anxiety.Furthermore, simply because gay marriage has positive effects on society, this doesn't mean we should legalize it. I will be as fair as possible, and try to summarize my opponent's argument, drawing out the hidden premise.P1: Gay marriage has good effects on people.P2: Whatever has good effects on people should be legalized.C: Gay marriage should be legalized.However, my opponent has not defended the second premise, and I have refuted her arguments for the first premise.Religious vs. legal reasonsI actually agree here. I shall not be arguing against gay marriage because of religious reasons.I'm now going to get into my arguments...Why does the government regulate marriage?I shall argue that the government regulates marriage for a reason. This reason must be a public one, or else legalizing gay marriage is a private matter which the government has no business in. The government doesn't recognize our relationships between our friends, because this is a private matter. The government is concerned with public matters. So what is the public affect of marriage?A special link to childrenThe reason that the government regulates marriage is because marriage has generally had a special link to children. If you think about this, it makes sense. Marriage has traditionally been held to be nothing else other than the official declaration of a man and woman's sexual relations. A relationship of this sort, which literally builds society, is obviously a public affair. Thus, the government will be interested in this type of relationship.Gay marriages do not qualify for this type of relationshipThis kindof goes without saying. Gay marriage doesn't create society in the way traditional marriage does. Since TM builds society, the government should regulate it accordingly.Couldn't gay marriage have some other effects on society though?You might say: "Sure, gay marriage doesn't build society, but it still has an affect on the public!"Well yes and no. Yes, gay marriage might affect society, but no, this isn't comparable to traditional marriage.Traditional marriage literally builds a country. Gay marriage, if it affects the society at all, affects a society built by traditional marriage. Thus, gay marriage is less fundamental than traditional marriage, and cannot affect society to the same degree.So gay marriage and traditional marriage aren't on the same footingIt should now be clear that traditional marriage is more fundamental to the public. Rather than just affecting an already existing society, it literally builds it. Putting gay marriage on legal par with traditional marriage would imply that gay marriage and traditional marriage affect society to the same degree. But they clearly don't. Thus, they shouldn't be given the exact same legal status.SummaryTo summarize my argument, it can be stated:P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B.P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage.C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage.I believe I have sufficiently defended each of these premises. Since this is a logically valid argument, and the premises are true, the conclusion follows with necessity.Since "legalizing gay marriage" typically means putting gay marriage right along side traditional marriage, and since this is what the debate is about, it clearly should not be legalized.I'd also like to thank DDO users Contradiction and xXCryptoXx, who have introduced me to this argument. Of course, I've added a few elements of my own for good measure. Over to my opponent! :)Sources(1)http://www.nizkor.org... |
50 | 74547446-2019-04-18T19:11:29Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Increase Social Services for persons living in poverty. In 2006 the United States Census Bureau reported that persons at the ages of 18 and under have higher rates of poverty than any other age group in the US and have had since 1975. That being said, we are able to see where the problem lies and just who needs to be helped to fix a large portion of it. It is because of that fact that my partner Evan and I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution the states: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. Observation 1: Harms Sub Point A:: Having Children in Poverty not Only Hurts the Individual but also Hurts the U.S. The Economic Costs of Poverty (americanprogress.org) Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor By Holzer, J. Duncan, and Ludwig, January 24, 2007 But there is also an economic case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty, they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy. Sub Point B: Poverty is on Rise Why Poverty Persists NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) June 2006 Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates. Overall, increasing the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point increases the poverty rate by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points. Bureau of Labor Statistics THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – AUGUST 2009 Sept 4th 2009 In August, the number of unemployed persons increased by 466,000 to 14.9 million, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent. The rate had been little changed in June and July, after increasing 0.4 or 0.5 percentage point in each month from December 2008 through May. Since the recession began in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 7.4 Million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 4.8 percentage points. Sub Point C: U.S. is Experiencing a Shortage of Skilled Laborers By Teresa Watanabe April 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Shortage of skilled workers looms in U.S. With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that workers in the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them. Observation 2: Inherency Sub Point A: The cost of day care is too high for families in poverty to meet. NACCRRA Price of Child Care Report 2008 According to the report, in 2007, the average price of full-time care for an infant in a center was as high as $14,591 a year. For a 4-year-old in a center, parents paid up to $10,787 a year for full-time care. Parents of school-age children paid up to $8,600 a year for part-time care in a center Sub Point B: College has become too expensive. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Report says college is too expensive Dec 5th 2008 A new report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education suggests that soaring college costs threaten to make college unaffordable for the majority of Americans. College tuition and fees rose 439% from 1982 to 2007 while the median family income rose just 147%, without adjusting for inflation. Sub Point C: There is a shortage of space for daycare. The SunTimes Prescott James, The Daily Graphic March 2009 Daycare facilities around the country have a shortage of space available for the care of young children. April Krastel is the executive director for the Portage Day Care Centre Inc., and as a childcare professional, she recognizes the shortage of space for children who need care. The affirmative team proposes the following plan to help the impoverished and decrease the number of families in poverty by addressing the problem at its root source. The affirmative team will allow for all persons living in poverty to receive free daycare as paid for by the government. In addition, the affirmative plan will allow funding for persons living in poverty to also obtain up to $7,000 for college tuition for as many years as needed in exchange for 500 hours community service hours per year (or 1 and half hours per day.) Should the work not be completed during the college years there is up to a one year grace period to pay back all of the money. In addition, should the student quit college or not pursue the hours needed, the money will become equivalent to that of a loan where they will be required to pay back the money by their own means. The plan will be funded by adding an additional ten cent tax to every dollar spent on cigarettes, alcohol, and all published pornographic material, (i.e. magazine, movies, etc…) The affirmative team claims the power of FIAT. Observation3: Solvency Sub Point A: Education helps countries get out of poverty. UN Works 2009 http://www.un.org...... Every day, Romsaas Wang sees children die of preventable diseases because their mothers could not read and write. "If you really put effort into education it will influence all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It's more risky not to invest in education because education helps countries get out of poverty." Sub Point B: Providing Day Care will increase the amount of jobs in the US. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 Early childhood programs not only will free parents to take new jobs, they can directly contribute in many other ways to the positive effects of a stimulus package. Multipliers for child care are 1.91 for total output (91 cents in additional economic activity on top of each dollar of federal investment) and 1.50 for employment (1 additional job created for every two new jobs created by federal investments in child care). Sub Point C: People with a College Education are less likely to be in Poverty 2004 American Community Survey The more education a person has, the less likely they will live in poverty. The poverty rate among people who earn a college degree is much lower than the poverty rate among people with only a high school diploma. And those who earn a high school diploma do much better than those without one. Advantage One: Early Education helps kids later in life. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 In addition to improving early learning and development, high-quality early education decreases school failure, increases economic productivity and decreases crime and delinquency. Advantage Two: Universal Childcare increases the quality of child care. Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being Michael Baker, University of Toronto and NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) April, 2008 In addition to increasing the quantity of places, there has been some emphasis on increasing the quality of care. Part of this has come through regulatory changes. Formal qualifications were raised for both CPE and family caregivers. The government has also implemented new wage policies in the sector to make it a more attractive profession: phased in over a four year period. In addition, it resulted in an average wage increase of 38 to 40 percent. |
21 | 7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Thank you for that last round. 1. While a rise in global temperature is undeniable, I disagree that the greenhouse effect is the cause. I repeat my original point that the recent warming of the Earth has to do with solar cycles and that a 2013 study proved that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century [2], and the recent rise in global temperature are within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years [2]. Additionally, to address your point concerning the declining Arctic sea, it's true that it was slowly descending, but since 2012, Arctic ice has gone up by 50% [4]. Even the increase between 2012 and 2013 was visibly significant [5]. This increase is equally as important as the decrease. I again repeat my original point concerning receding glaciers. They have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes [2], and the recently receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to atmospheric circulation changes, which is the "large scale movement of air" [3]. 2. My opponent has argued that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activities.However this is not entirely true. David Henderson went through everything that Cook et all claimed and found that only 64 out of the 11,944 scientists that were examined claimed explicitly that global warming was a cause of humans. This number brings the 97% down to 1.6% [1, 2]. Here is Henderson's list providing all the numbers: While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that human activities have caused global warming, there are still many scientists who disagree.In 2010, a report by Climate Depot claimed that over 1,000 scientists (many of which were form UN IPCC scientists) disagreed that humans are "primarily responsible for global climate change" [2].Again, in 2014, 15 scientists declared that the US National Climate Assessment's declaration of human caused climate change to be "NOT true" [2]. Conclusion:It remains that many scientists agree that global warming exists only as a solar cycle and is not caused by human activities. Thank you for reading! Sources:1. http://econlog.econlib.org...2. http://climatechange.procon.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://townhall.com...5. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org... |
37 | 160682d8-2019-04-18T18:08:30Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phone should be allowed in middle school . nice.......................................................... But your kid use phone in class then get in college for thing they can't do (because they cheat) You say that kid any-ways --------->and you think that cool BULL**** ON THAT S**T. If my kids cheat I will make sure they do all the work again. Thank you again |
3 | db6dc319-2019-04-18T19:28:50Z-00005-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Gay Rights Gays should be allowed to marry |
48 | a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lowering the voting age Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called "kangaroo youth" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, "Get out the Vote" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's "Get out the Vote" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you. |
7 | 7ba43144-2019-04-18T13:55:58Z-00000-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Women should be allowed to vote So far, you haven't posted an argument. Why would anyone vote con? Vote Pro. I never forfeited. |
24 | e2925fe3-2019-04-19T12:47:22Z-00037-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Lack of innovation and investment Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."[[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you-cannot-strengthen-the-weak-by-weakening-the/821892.html]] Investment like people is mobile, and with globalisation becoming more global. There has been a particular trend of outsourcing jobs and investment over the last few decades. As tax is a cost to the rich businessmen it is likely to create more outsourcing. The rich are the wealth creators of the country, the innovators, inventors and investors, scare them away and they will no longer invest in the country. Most of them are hard working and because they are mobile will be very sensitive to tax changes.[[Harry Phibbs, Piling taxes on the rich will hit the wrong people - and raise diddly squat, MailOnline, 24th March 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1164123/HARRY-PHIBBS-Piling-taxes-rich-hit-wrong-people--raise-diddly-squat.html%5D%5D Overall the level of taxation has an inverse relationship to the level of economic growth. This is because the investors do not feel as rewarded for their investment if they cannot gain most of the profit, they want to know why the government which has often done very little to help them should gain the benefit of their investments through taxation when the economy is already gaining through higher number of jobs. The higher the tax rate the higher the rate of return investors will require for their investments and the less they will pay for a given investment. In the US from 1997 to 2007 the non-income tax states had 21% job growth compared to 11% job growth in the high income tax states. Also Personal income grew by 84% in the non-income tax states, versus 64% in the high income tax states. This is most severe where there is a progressive taxation regime i.e. higher taxes on the rich than on the poor. According to a Joint Economic Committee of Congress report in 1982 "Income taxes levied on individuals and corporations are particularly detrimental to growth... Progressive taxation not only lowers the rate of economic growth compared with proportional or regressive taxation, but in the process hurts the very persons that progressive taxes are designed to help: The poor."[[Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore & Jonathan Williams, Rich States, Poor States, American Legislative Exchange Council, (Washington, 2009), pp.34-36, http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/tax/09RSPS/26969_REPORT_full.pdf%5D%5D Tax has a similar effect on the stock market, if the rich are being taxed more on their income they will have less to invest on the stock market. Moreover if returns from investments (capital gains) are counted as income then the higher the tax rate the fewer investment opportunities there will be that meet the new required higher level of return.[[Daniel Obrycki, Rafael Resendes, Tax the Rich, Starve the Poor, Real Clear Markets, 24th January 2008, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/tax_the_rich_starve_the_poor_1.html%5D%5D There will therefore be less trading and investing and companies stock will be worth less, which in turn reduces the amount of capital in the country reducing investment. Overall as higher taxes equals less investment which in turn equals lower economic growth then the consequences of raising taxes are negative. This lower growth will mean less jobs so more are out of work, while those in jobs get lower pay increases. There is less building of infrastructure such as roads and railways, less choice in services such as banking and education, and less exciting new innovations such as debatewise! |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00010-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9) |
48 | 1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Dogs>Cats CAT STDS BITCh http://wtvr.com... GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL G |
4 | 2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Thank you Con for the swift response. I apologize it took so long for my answer, as weekends can be a bit hectic. Con states in his argument for number one that "The more "spankings children" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior." Con supplies this quote with a source that includes a study done. I would like to point out to the voters that this study may be misleading, as the point of corporal punishment is to enforce order in the classroom. This sense of order may include students not talking, or being "anti-social" as Con states. Con's second argument states that children with disabilities get punished more than other children. This, my friend, is against the law. This is considered assaulting a cripple, or simply put Assault and Battery, "Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another." [1] Con's third argument is solid, and without flaw. Or one thinks when first reading it. For this argument, he states that students find the message that violence is the answer. This is almost comparing the case of violent video games increasing the chance of violent children. This has been debunked on more than one occasion, and whether or not you agree with the statement, in the analogy of video games, if a parent does not agree with the "rating" of the game, they remove the child from the situation. This can be done with schools as well. If a parent feels that their child is not going to develop well in a school, they remove their child from the situation. As for Con's arguments in 4 and 5, if the voters will note all sources listed, they have dates of more than a decade ago. These are not entirely reliable sources, as science has made and will continue to make new discoveries, therefore changing the statistics shown and stated by Con. Con fails to point out in six that again, this would be against the law. Bruises may occur, but for breaking a child's bones, this is classified as Assaulting a Minor and Child Abuse. The case of the child's death, is second degree murder. [2] Remember voters, the objective of corporal punishment is not to beat a child senseless, but to give spankings or paddlings for inappropriate behavior in the classroom. In argument 7, Con states that due to corporal punishment, it gives an acceptable means of aggression to solve problems in our society. This will simply be preparing students for the real world. Our society is filled will people who believe aggression solves problems. These people are called politicians, and often, these politicians make the decisions for our country, and will invade foreign countries. They do this in the belief that America can enforce what they want when they want on who they want due to their aggressive and gigantic military. Argument 9 is a bit humorous to the argument. The point of corporal punishment is not to tickle students and reward them for misbehavior. It is simply to show them the superiority and wrongdoing of their actions through a physical punishment, which will probably physically harm them, and embarrass the student, emotionally harming them. This is simply just the point of corporal punishment. But there is one simple solution to this problem. Students who don't misbehave don't get punished. The problem does not go back to the teachers, but to the students. Under Cons facts, Con states that schools are the only legal place that it is permitted to strike another. Con has obviously never watched a hockey game. Schools are one of many institutions where others can get hit, home is another one of these, again under the parents discretion. Con states in 11 that "Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge)." While Con's "general knowledge" might be correct from where Con lives, it certainly is not general knowledge across the country. He proves no information on detentions working. I'm sure many of the voters have seen "The Breakfast Club." The Criminal, played by Judd Nelson, obviously has no problem with getting Saturday after Saturday detentions. But later in the movie, when the principle brings him into his office, and they get ready to duke it out, Judd stands down giving the man the respect he desires. I thank Con for the debate acceptance and look forward to next round. Again voters please keep in mind this may not directly reflect my personal opinions on the matter of Corporal Punishment. 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://criminal.findlaw.com... |
36 | db0ae60a-2019-04-18T13:11:04Z-00005-000 | Is golf a sport? | Running is a Sport I believe that running is a sport. The first round is acceptance. The con may not bring up new points in the final round. |
50 | a48081b0-2019-04-18T19:55:32Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care I will first refute your points, then make my own. Throughout the debate I am basing my assertions about universal health care plans on Hillary Clinton's plan; as she is the Democratic front-runner (and Obama's is very similar) it is a good platform for what is actually being proposed. What she proposes, in brief, is this: 1. If you have health insurance now, keep it. 2. If you do not, you can: - buy private insurance direct from an insurer - buy private insurance through the government (like what Congress gets) - apply for a subsidized plan. These will be given need-based. 3. Everyone must have health insurance, and all plans must meet certain standards. "My first point, being that there isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" It is easy to find examples of any system that does not run well. In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this problem by having the government do needs-based subsidizing for lower-income families. In terms of universal health care, Germany is a good example of what happens when it works right, and they spend much less of their GDP per capita on health care than we do. "My second point deals with how if we go through with public health care, it will become premanent just like social security turned out to be." It is meant to be permanent, as was Social Security. This is a bit of a non-issue. "And now my third and final point states that patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now." The subsidized private plans that lower-income families will be purchasing will cover doctor's visits, of course - just like every other private health insurance plan that is worth its salt. "In closing, by establishing free and universal health-care, we will drastically hurt our economy, everything our nation stands for, and it may also harm our actual health, doing the exact opposite thing it tried to do. Thank you." You have failed to prove any of these. And now, for my points. 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. |
6 | 30a568aa-2019-04-18T16:55:27Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Public vs Private Education Public education is, overall, not worth it to a wealthier person. To a person who doesn't have the wealth it is much smarter to put his or her child into public education rather than private education because of the main fact that they cant pay for the private education. This means that any education is good enough for his or her child and if this means public is better choice for the family because they cant afford the private education. Even though one must obtain a higher gpa to get into a preferred school under public education just means that you can get a lower gpa in Private education because realistically you are paying in advance for a college degree. |
48 | b0d05931-2019-04-18T18:20:30Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Should Drinking age be lowered My OPP has once again given up another round. I take it she has given up. |
4 | 4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment My rebuttal and argument is that corporal punishment on children (Example: spanking) does not work. Spanking children distracts the child from the real goal; when you spank the children will than focus on the punishment and will not focus on the reason their bad behavior was bad; this means they will continue with that behavior because they don't consider it bad behavior. Corporal punishment also makes children view aggressive and violent behavior as acceptable increasing their chances of being violent. A scientific study has found that children who grow up in schools that use corporal punishment performed worse on tasks then those growing up In schools that did not use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment results in children not internalizing rules and standards meaning that the only reason they don't do bad things is fear of corporal punishment; children who do not get spanked are more likely to believe in rules and laws meaning they don't do bad things because they view bad things as bad. http://scienceblog.com... Another study found that spanking kids leads to more long-term behavior problems. Meaning spanking does not work but in fact increases bad behavior. http://www.cnn.com... Another study found the same results as the first two. http://www.time.com... |
2 | 18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar. |
26 | 375fc61d-2019-04-18T13:54:50Z-00000-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr Rebuttal on first claim: what is the bad side of them in the different schools? i don't see enough evidence to support your claim Rebuttal on second claim: what does test scores have to do with being economically mixed? i don't see your point here. Rebuttal on third claim: what about the other grade levels? not just elementary. Do they benefit? i don't see evidence supporting "everyone" kids in higher grade levels qualify as "everyone" too. |
45 | 4a1372a4-2019-04-18T13:04:07Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | morality poison=unhealthy logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy(humanity)=right illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy(religion)=wrong 1+1=3(belief) 1+1=2(know+knowledge) |
38 | c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00002-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana should be legal Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment. |
Subsets and Splits