query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
7 | fe87277-2019-04-18T19:35:36Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | The Whole World Should Vote On The US President Only US citizens should vote as they are the ones that are fundamentally subjected to government treatment - all the decisions made by the US president have a direct effect on the American people; the government is supposed to "govern" its people (ie. it should have a direct tie with the people and reflect the general peoples' decisions, as ultimately it serves to "serve" the people). US citizens should be the priority of the US government and president, they should have the sole right and power to choose their leader, as they have their inherent rights as US citizens. If you allow other countries to vote on your president they might aim to weaken / destabilize your country's institution - their priority would be to achieve their wants in terms of your country's foreign policy, wouldn't it? |
34 | df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking sites are a boon At the moment his words go against the motion that is in my motion. |
3 | 41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00056-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Global C02 trading not like US sulfur trading "The case against carbon trading". Rising Tide - "CO2 IS NOT SO2. The main model for carbon trading is Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) emissions trading under the US 1990 Clean Air Act. This programme faced none of the problems listed above- it was small (a few hundred companies), easy to monitor (one pollutant from one source-power generation), had permanent targets, and, above all, was conducted within one country with strong enforcement mechanisms." |
44 | e8a895f6-2019-04-18T16:38:39Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Naruto Uzumaki can beat Monkey D. Luffy in a fight, if not equally match him THE NINE TAILS PROBLEM" the Nine Tails cannot be defeated as established by myself in the previous round. It is not possible to knock it unconscous.... Nine Tails is a fragmant of a God, therefore cannot be killed. It can only be sealed, which is something Luffy can't do, therefore Luffy can't defeat Nine Tails."When comparing the characters of two shows, it is necessary to make their fighting mechanisms compatible."Sealing" doesn't even EXIST in the One Piece world, just as Haki doesn't exist in the Naruto world. We must use logic to predict the effects of these mechanisms in their non-respective worlds, for the purposes of a realistic fight.We have decided that Nine Tails is either a Logia or made of Haki, and in either case, Luffy can defeat Nine Tails.Pro argues against the possibility of Nine Tails being a Logia:"The Nine Tails is a seperate being. It has it's own conciousness, that frequently communicates with its host Naruto... Logia has no conciousness, and is simply a tool manipulated by its user."So? If a gun was alive, it would still kill people the same way: by shooting. "It is possible to have two Devil Fruit powers... having two tailed beasts sealed within you is not possible"Actually, Blackbeard is the only character in One Piece to have two devil fruits, through a method which has not been revealed yet in the show. It is most likely an ability unique to his particular devil fruit (yami yami no mi)Sub-conclusion: Nine Tails CAN be a Logia.However, Pro offers up a second suggestion for compatibility: "it is more logical to assume that Haki in One Piece would be analogous to the the Chakra in Naruto... the Tailed Beast Mode is made of Chakra, therefore made of Haki."However, this point works against my opponent, as this would clearly make the Nine Tailed Fox a physical being that CAN be hit using haki-infused attacks! (ever heard of fighting fire with fire?)Based on this suggestion, Pro makes makes a case for Naruto's superior durability: " Luffy and Naruto have the same armor, therefore equal durability, counting out the fact that Naruto's armor heals him, which would make his armor superior to Luffy's."This would seem like a valid point on the surface, but here is the thing: the Nine Tails armor is a SEPARATE ENTITY from Naruto, and thus, once that separate entity has been defeated, Naruto is left with no armor. Meanwhile, Luffy's armor is ON his body, and once you break it, he can simply regenerate it.In conclusion, -- If Nine Tails is a Logia, Luffy's haki-infused attacks will work on it-- If Nine Tails is made of Haki, Luffy's haki-infused attacks will STILL work on itand...-- Naruto's armor heals him, but it is temporary-- Luffy's armor only protects him, but is permanent (through regeneration)Thus, Luffy and Naruto have EQUAL levels of durability.BRUTE STRENGTH"Luffy's Gears do not contribute to his brute strength at all!... Gears do not measure Luffy's physical strength. They are Luffy's battle techniques, like Naruto's Rasengan."When I say "brute strength", I'm talking about the sheer force of their physical attacks.The sole purpose of Gear Second and Gear Third is to add to that, so they do count...And anyways, Sage Mode and Kyuubi Mode are like that, too, so if we invalidate Luffy's Gears, then that invalidates Naruto's Modes as well, leaving both characters with nothing but the power of their muscles, and we have already established that Naruto comes no where NEAR Luffy in that sense.This argument only detracts from Pro's point. By his definition, Luffy has a HUGE advantage over Naruto in terms of brute strength. By my definition, Luffy would still win that contest, but not by such a huge margin.SPECIAL ADVANTAGES"Naruto cannot control his armor at all. The Nine Tailed Fox takes over completely. While it may seem that this would put Naruto at a disadvantage, in fact it doesn't. Who would know better as to how to move in a Fox's body than the Fox himself?"It has been shown that in that mode, the Nine Tailed Fox goes on a mad rampage with no regard for who Naruto's actual target is. This has been shown repeatedly throughout the show, with the problem becoming so so bad that Naruto has to have a ninja with him during training (Yamato) JUST to make sure he doesn't turn into Nine Tails!The Nine Tails Armor may give Naruto a huge boost in strength and defense, but the fact is, that Naruto cannot make Nine Tails do what he wants during battle, which means that by using the Nine Tails Armor, Naruto sacrifices his control over himself."...no matter how adaptable Luffy is, if the setting is underwater, there is no way he can adapt without a gadget of some sort."Frankly, Pro seems a bit obsessed with the battle being underwater.... How many underwater battles have there been throughout either series? Barely any. Underwater isn't Naruto's ideal battle field either; he has absolutely no experience in such a setting. Also, Pro disregards the fact that Luffy is perfectly capable of staying out of the water. I gave the example of Luffy's battle with Don Krieg, which happened on 2 ships in the middle of the ocean, yet Luffy didn't fall into the ocean at all, and that was BEFORE all his various upgrades.Pro overestimates the threat that water poses to Luffy."Excuse me, but HOW many times throughout the show has Luffy EVER encountered HUNDREDS of Naruto's Shadow Clones? You can't make assumptions like that without anything backing it up."Luffy has easily taken out 500 Marine soldiers at Ennies Lobby, 1000 zombies at Thriller Bark, countless marine soldiers at Marineford, and, most recently, 50,000 fishmen at Fishman Island. Numbers. Don't. Faze. Luffy. At. All.He can easily take out all the clones with Conqueror's Haki or Gomu Gomu no Jet Storm.SPEEDI really do apologize for bringing up this issue so late into the debate, but the argument I used to concede Naruto's speed actually was logically fallacious.I agree with Pro's contention that Naruto can move faster than light.However, Pro then goes on to state that "Luffy is in his Gear 2nd form, which is his fastest form. Notice that there are no instances in which he is so fast, he dissapears and reappears like Naruto did. However, his punches leave traces of condensed air, although not as big as a real sonic boom. Therefore, it is plausible to say that Luffy's top speed is similar to the speed of sound "First of all, he DOES move that fast...Look at videos 1 and 2. There are SEVERAL instances of him moving so much faster than light that he appears invsible.Second of all, Pro has mis-indentified the trails that Luffy leaves behind.That is not caused by his speed; that is simply STEAM from his Gear Second. It has nothing to do with the speed of sound or whatever...Also, Luffy BEAT a man MADE of LIGHTNING (Enel) by moving faster than him EVEN WITHOUT GEAR SECOND (Video 3, 2:50). Enel was unable to escape Luffy's Gomu Gomu no Rifle because it was too fast for him, despite the fact that he himself is made of lightning. Sub-conclusions: -Luffy's attacks can be faster than lightning.-Both characters can move at or above the speed of light, and so neither has the speed advantage.CONCLUSIONS:-Unless he can do a sealing technique, his Haki wouldn't be as affective as Con claims it is against the Nine Tails (who's apparently made of Haki as well).No matter what Nine Tails is made of (Logia or Haki), Luffy's powerful Haki attacks will be sufficient to knock it out.-Naruto's armor is superior because it is an imortal fragmant of a God with it's own conciousness and heals Naruto's wounds.We have already deduced that Nine Tails can be knocked out with Haki.And Naruto's Nine Tails Armor has its own disadvantages, such as lack of control.-Luffy cannot adapt underwater without any special gadgetry. Even if the setting was on a pirate ship in the middle of the ocean, he cannot adapt well if Naruto and Luffy destroy the ship in their fight, leaving Naruto standing on the surface of the ocean while Luffy drowns.As I showed, the likelihood of an underwater battle is very low, and simply the presence of water at the battlefield will pose a very minimal threat to Luffy, due to his combat experience and adaptability.I wish my opponent good luck with the final round of the debate! :Dhttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... |
35 | 271b8702-2019-04-18T17:02:05Z-00007-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Video Games do not Make Kids Violent Look, this debate is getting too old, and I'm going to stop it right here, right now. Challenge me. |
24 | bf86583-2019-04-18T18:37:59Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed First, I will provide rebuttals, then explain a counterplan. The Act is clearly not bipartisan. Every Republican US Senator voted against it, even moderates including Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who voted for Obama's 1st stimulus. Payroll tax cuts are a not very efficient way to cut taxes. "It would simply exacerbate our debt problems in my opinion" according to Congressman Paul Ryan. The payroll tax cut is simply another gimmick because it is temporary and demand sided. We had tax incentives similar to these in the first stimulus bill. It was promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. Instead, we've had the longest streak of unemployment since the great depression. These tax gimmicks and temporary tricks don't work. The enormous cost of fixing our roads is exactly why the federal bureaucracy shouldn't be involved. At $2.2 trillion, we can't afford to spend all that money. The infrastructure bank would fix very little, and pork-barrel politicians may divert funding to useless "Bridges to Nowhere." Infrastructure projects from the previous stimulus haven't fixed anything: you mention all the deficiencies: so what makes this new stimulus plan, with even less bipartisan support, any better? 1. Good tax cuts are a solid venue to economic growth. But they need to be focused on those creating the jobs. Demand-side tax cuts are temporary gimmicks. 2. You say that this spending will "revitalize public schools." School spending has increased enormously and class sizes have gone significantly down, but test scores haven't improved. This is because teachers unions are preventing common-sense accountability measures. We need private schools so we can experiment and find the best ways to teach our children, not spend money we don't have and call it "investment". 3. We don't need to spend federal government money at all on infrastructure. The Dulles Greenway was built entirely by private investment. If we streamline regulations to building infrastructure(these regulations are required for all projects, whether public or private), the conditions of our roads would improve because companies want to improve the quality of roads because they are bad for business. 4. Unemployment benefits do make people lazy. People applying for unemployment benefits had employment, but unemployment benefits can cause people to become couch potatoes. The lure of a paycheck for doing nothing can be too much for ordinarily hardworking people. According to JP Morgan Chase, unemployment benefits increased the unemployment rate by 1.5%. Unemployment benefits often are higher than minimum wage jobs, discouraging people from accepting perfectly good entry-level occupations. 5. We do need teachers, firefighters, and police officers, but too many government employees does crowd out private investment, even if they serve a valuable purpose. It would be great to rehire them, but that money will dry up eventually and those people may be fired again. The beauty of a private sector job is that it provides a permanent job for a person at no cost to the taxpayer. 6. School spending should be directed at local levels. The federal government has an innate tendency to waste money, but the innovative local governments can do more with less. 7. These construction jobs will go away when the money dries up. The projects may not even be finished. I am saying that lowering the corporate tax is a better way forward than another stimulus, considering the first one failed. 10. There is a reason employers discriminate against the unemployed during a recession: the best, most-competent people usually don't get laid off. Of course, employers could also see through other credentials that an unemployed person got unlucky. But more regulations leads to a higher overhead for business which leads to less jobs to go around. 11. The top 1% pay 41% of the taxes. They have paid enough. Requiring the top people to pay more is simply class warfare. Half of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. Big government liberals can bribe these people to vote for them, and then steal money from successful people so they can buy votes. In a recession, the WORST thing we can do is raise taxes. It crowds out private investment. My counterplan is simple: -Eliminate the corporate tax($191 billion less revenue) -Streamline regulations(no cost, most likely net increase in revenue) As former governor and financial expert Gary Johnson said, eliminating the corporate tax would create millions of jobs by itself. This would cost much less than the Obama plan, which many are skeptical if it would create any jobs(even liberal estimates say it would only lower the unemployment rate by 1%). We need to CREATE jobs by promoting economic freedom. My opponent never explained how this act is different than the first stimulus. If the 1st one didn't live up to predictions, why will this one? For all these reasons, I urge a Negative ballot. |
30 | 855baa3e-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00006-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban Now to the arguments. Concealed-Carry Laws: I don't think a very minute difference like that would be conclusive evidence, Because correlation does not exactly mean causation. In the research I've done, Concealed-carry holders commit crimes 16% less than police officers. That is how law-abiding they are. [1] In addition, As concealed-carry goes up by the thousands, In the past 20 years, Violent crime in America has decreased by 50%. [2] Gun Laws: Of course they will not have more GUN crime, But people use other things like knives. For this reason, I think you should compare OVERALL murder rates BEFORE and AFTER gun bans, Because each country is different in its level of crime and murder. In this case, Gun bans have proven not to be effective in decreasing murder rates, And sometimes murder spikes after they are banned, Like what happened in England. [3] "Assault Weapons": Before I start, There is no official term "assault weapon. " That is a made up term. What guns are in the "assault weapon" category? Automatic guns have actually been banned since the 1930's, So this is an ivalid argument. In addition, Semi-automatic weapons are basically any gun, Like handguns, Pistols, Shotguns, AK-47, AR-15, Etc. So your "assault weapons" are my average gun, Because semi-automatic weapons which you constitute into this category is almost every gun. Therefore, You basically want to ban all guns. There actually is evidence that guns deter crime. According to an unpublished CDC study, [4] there are almost 2. 5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year(DGU's). As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15. 7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, Another 14. 6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, Let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. Since they surveyed 222 participants, The margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4. 8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270, 000 lives are saved by guns, Up to over 500, 000 just counting the "almost certainly people. " If all the "probably" people are right, Then that number goes beyond 800, 000. Moreover, For every firearm homicide, At least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, Then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5]. Most mass shootings, And gun homicides overall, For that fact, Are done with handguns. There are over 2. 5x as much handguns used in mass shootings than any rifle. If we are talking about the number of incidents, Handguns are used 2x as much as rifles. [6] Rifles of ANY TYPE make up less than 300 gun murders per year. Hand guns are the main cause of gun death. The Second Amendment: I agree on background checks and restrictions on guns, Only law-abiding people should get them, Yes, But here is what you later say- "These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. " Automatic guns are already banned, Which I have explained previously, And semi-automatics are DEFINITELY NOT MADE for MILITARY COMBAT. You would be a fool walking into the military with a handgun or AR-15. An "assault rifle" is defined as a fully automatic machine gun, Which military would use. An AR-15 could be confused with a military M-16, But they are completely different and military rifles are not sold to the public. [7] I would argue concealed-carry is protected by the second amendment, Because the right to protect yourself doesn't just extend to home-defense, But wherever you go in public. Again, Assault rifles are not legal and a very vague term, So that argument is invalid. Finally, My opponent states "A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn't mean it"s subject to scrutiny. " The Constitution is still in tact and just because it was written 200 years ago does not question its validity. They wrote it knowing that they themselves could go tyrannical. They believed in the basic right to self-defense, And their is a lot of validity to that claim. Just because freedom of speech was made 200 years ago does not mean we should not consider it because the Constitution is too old. Without the second, Their is no first amendment. We have to protect the freedom expressed in the first amendment. I do not think banning guns is a necessary answer to gun violence, But rather mental-illness screening, Promoting gun safety, And making sure the police do their job efficiently. I thank my opponent for making good arguments that I could think about and research more. This is probably the hardest argument I have gotten, So props to my opponent for that as well. Thank you for your patience and civility, And if the sources do not go through, I will provide them through a google doc in the comment section, Like armoredcat, My opponent, Did in round one. Now the torch is passed back to you, My friend. Sources: 1. Https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/ (scroll about two thirds down the page, And you will see the statistic) 2. Http://www. Gunfacts. Info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ (go to the graph, You will find it on the top of the page) 3. Https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ 4. Https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/ 5. Http://www. Thetruthaboutguns. Com/2017/05/bruce-krafft/more-lives-are-saved-by-defensive-gun-uses-than-taken-in-criminal-gun-uses/ 6. Https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ 7. Https://www. Nssf. Org/msr/ |
43 | 99f0f171-2019-04-18T18:16:57Z-00006-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Semen should be bottled and sold as a teeth whitener. I thank WSA for the challenge and look forward to this debate. I accept all terms and ruling for this debate and tourney.Good tidings returnedI wish my athiestic fried good luck during this momentous debate, which will be showered in overwhelming and support and praise from every active and inactive menber of DDO. But, the time must come for the gods to decide the outcome, and I have already slaughtered 26 and a half peices of cheese around a dingo as of the posting of this round to appease them in an ultimate act of unquestioning piety and cheesiness.May thee cheese flow forth from the wounds thou shalt recieve upon the ending of this quarrel of wits!All that's left to say is.....CHEESEDINGO1 ACCEPTS! |
29 | 42af831b-2019-04-18T19:42:13Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. Although i do not think gun control laws are right I think that the States should have the Final say in Gun control Laws. You say force as in without regard to the people of the states oppinion therefore violating the states rights. |
24 | ac032197-2019-04-18T15:34:03Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The Negative Income Tax I would like to debate the idea of a negative income tax. The idea is simple: The Gov sets a poverty threshold of X$, anyone earning below X$ would get the difference paid by the Gov. I recently made a poll about this topic and was surprised by how many people were against it. I also noticed that most people made claims that are simply not true. Therefore, I'm asking anyone interested, to debate this topic with me. |
44 | e8dd2df4-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00005-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date Australia Day should NOT be changed from the 26th of January to another date. Australia is a national public holiday in Australia. It is the celebration of the arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson on the 26th of January 1788. It is celebrated annually because it is celebrated on what is means to be Australian and what's great about being Australian and living in Australia as a community. It is a day to reconnect with others as a community and a society and to feel special as a community and family. It is more than any other public holiday, it is a great day to be together as a society or/and a town/suburb. It is celebrated in every town/suburb/city. My two arguments will be that Australia day is on the 26th of January to people can remember/celebrate what being Australian is all about and its history and that Australia day brings families and communities to remind them about Australia's history! |
49 | df1f2018-2019-04-18T18:34:37Z-00005-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | War should be mandatory Inevitability of War War, in all its glory, seems to be a constant feature in the human landscape. From the first pile of poo thrown on a hirsute competitor by a presumably worked up proto-ape to the sophisticated nuclear powered explosive devices dropped on competitors by the advanced and enlightened homo-sapiens, the only thing that has changed is the manner and scale of killing. I trotted over to Wikipedia to check on the wars fought over the last century, and was sufficiently surprised to find out that there were 4 years when no war was started. Namely 1923, 1949, 1951 and 1986. (I propose that generous research grants be endowed to study the reasons behind such lack of aggression during these years.) This, however, does not mean that no wars were fought in those years. Wars started previously continued in these years, just that no NEW war was started. [1] It also seems that the century before that was as prolific in wars as this one, so I can conclude that wars are never going away, irrespective of all the oaths taken by the winners of beauty contests. Cost of War Given this, no country can afford to relax and not worry about defending its territory, and reasonably, no country does. Some even go so far as to defend territories of allies, or even territories they have no cause to defend, other than to frustrate an enemy trying to conquer said territory. Needless to say, this leads to considerable expenditure in terms of resources and manpower, especially since they don't know when they'll be attacked, leading to them maintaining a standing army all the time, as well as employing diplomats and spies to find out if enemy nations are preparing for war. To be frank, this is a drain on the economy of under-developed and developing nations, who have other better things to spend their money on. Even highly developed nations find it difficult to balance their books, so it's high time that some steps are taken to put everything in order. Benefits of War On the other hand, many of the inventions made by humans that are highly useful now, have been made/popularized because of warfare. From tampons to trench-coats, microwave ovens to Medevac helicopters, VW Beetles to Hummers, nylon to plastics, rockets to satellites, radar to the Internet. Life as we know and live it, won't be possible without war. So, in a roundabout way, war is beneficial to humans (the ones that don't die in it, of course) and so must be preserved. [2] [3] [4] Proposal How do we balance these two things out? To this end, I propose the following: 1.Do away with the uncertainty of war, and make it mandatory. 2.Fix a time period in which the war will be fought, as well as the duration of the war. 3.Fix the period between wars. 4.Limit the weaponry and manpower on both sides to a pre-arranged minimum. 5.Fix locations on a home-and-away basis. 6.Finally, the victor should be compensated accordingly. These steps will provide manifold benefits to every country, however ahead or behind it is, in terms of economic and social progress, relative to the other nations. Due to its mandatory nature, the people of each nation will have no choice but to contribute to the war effort in some manner. This maybe in terms of either signing up to be a soldier, or working on doing research, as well as having benefits in terms of encouraging fiscal restraint and promoting socially inclusive behavior by uniting all the peoples of the country against a common enemy. As everybody will be working, it might boost the economy in some manner, as some economists like to argue. Fixing a time of year for the war will enable people to make travel plans accordingly, as well as allowing both sides to prepare strategies to tackle the physical conditions that might be prevalent at that time. Also, a fixed duration for the war will help no end in planning the resource allocation and keeping up the morale of the soldiers, who can look forward to a well-earned rest, if they come out alive, that is, or if they have been good all through their life. [5] The periods of "rest" between the wars will enable the nation to enjoy peace without worrying about defending themselves from attacked. This time period will also help in recruiting new soldiers to replace the ones that have died, to drum up war hysteria against the next enemy on the calendar, enabling the people to learn the history and culture of their enemies, thus helping in education. Of course, it all becomes pointless if any side is allowed to use weapons that can annihilate the opponents instantly. To ensure a fair fight, a worldwide campaign must be mounted to erase the phrase "All's fair in love and war" or at least the war part, from the minds of the people. Then both sides must agree in advance as to which weapons can be used and how many soldiers can be deployed, etc. etc. (not so difficult, as warring nations currently agree on methods of treating prisoners of war and many such matters). We can call this the Swiss Convention. To ensure maximum variety in terrains and physical conditions, wars should be alternated on the home and away basis, so that every nation gets a taste of war, which is ultimately the point of the whole exercise. Nothing hits as hard as a home run, or a run in one's own home, or some such. This will also keep the tradition of a war being fought every year in some place in the world going. What's the point if the victor does not get anything? What should the nations fight for? Territory? Resources? Ego? Doesn't matter. This can also be arranged beforehand. As this whole exercise is an exercise in fairness, the manner of victory will be decided by the United Nations, which will take into account factors such as body count, GDP, population, technological advances, etc. before deciding the victor. For example, in a war between the US and Afghanistan, the loss of even one helmet will consign the US to defeat, while victory for the US can be achieved only if they manage to wipe out every single soldier without suffering even a nail scratch. Such terms can be discussed in the UN Security Council. Since there's a high chance that the soldiers might die, every nation should see to it that soldiers are the highest paid people in the whole country. This will ensure that there's no dearth of applicants for this position. Summary Thus, if you favor a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace for civilians, I urge you to vote pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.history.com... [3] http://www.cracked.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.christiananswers.net... |
27 | ea8c0bac-2019-04-18T12:24:23Z-00006-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Gun control is the right way to go. I will let the opposition start. Post your argument below. |
12 | 224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00006-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Businesses Providing Birth Control Products The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide birth control products to their employees. Many religious business owners have a problem with this, and want it to stop. I as Con want this requirement to go out of effect, Pro must want the opposite. First Round will be for acceptance. Otherwise the debate format is unstructured. Please note the 48 hour response time limit. |
37 | 9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | They can cause cancer We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure. |
9 | 2e0aacbd-2019-04-18T18:33:31Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | more guns less crime I'm bored so. .. Just bringing back Koopin's speaches. |
44 | 790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Thanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is "democratic". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is "good" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most "democratic" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means "all" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority "somewhat" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions ("extremists") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are "unrepresented" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks "[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal ("Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... |
30 | 874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00003-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org... on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com.... Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.) 18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research I will reply to your stats next round |
26 | 9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Test This is not much of a debate - but I will state some of my personal beliefs on the negative effects of standardized testing. 1. No improvements - whatsoever.The stated goal of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was "An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind."No child left behind - but since it was passed, the US education system has been left behind. When this legislature was signed, the US ranked 18th in math. In 2009 - seven short years later - the US had fallen to number 31. A similar drop occurred in science; reading scores have not changed quite so much. I am arguing that if the stated goal of No Child Left Behind - the program the jump started standardized testing - is to do what it says, it has not succeeded. In the same way, kids aren't succeeding as a whole. And the US education system is not succeeding, much less meeting the standards set before our younger generation. The USA recently ranked "average" among other world leaders in comparison to test scores. The large implementation of standardized testing has proved to be a drawback to this nation. 2. What is meaningful? Standardized testing does not measure what makes education meaningful. Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, a late education researcher, once stated that such tests cannot measure, "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity." These are really what kick-starts a student's interest in learning. Tests do not measure this. 3. Drill 'n kill. A five-year study by the University of Maryland found that, ""the pressure teachers were feeling to 'teach to the test'" since NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was leading to "declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum." This quality is important to me - that students get what they are learning, and understand it, instead of them remembering it for the tests and then forgetting it over summer break and the years to come. 4. Science, social studies, and the arts? A 2007 study done across the nation found that 44% of school districts were cutting time on subject areas such as science, social studies, and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week. Why? To make time for reading and math - the majority of what makes up standardized tests. Science, social studies, and the arts should not be reduced in importance to students - even younger students. Science helps them understand the world around us. Social studies increases their understanding of the governments, cultures, and peoples of the world. The arts - art, music, etc. - can spark creativity in their young minds. Reading and math are important - but science, social studies, and the arts are subject areas that shouldn't be ignored. Testing encourages these subjects to be almost eradicated from the teachers' agendas. 5. Test preparation. Some schools spend a quarter of their time on test preparation - this wastes precious instruction time. After NYC schools' reading and math scores plunged in 2010, "many schools imposed extra measures to avoid being shut down, including daily two and a half hour prep sessions and test practice on vacation days." "On Sep. 11, 2002, students at Monterey High School in Lubbock, TX, were prevented from discussing the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks because they were too busy with standardized test preparation."Take some time, I say, to truly teach the subjects. Sure, some review is good. But when a large amount of instruction time is wasted on test preparation, I think the concept of standardized testing goes a bit too far. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I want to cite the website that I am getting my facts from - http://standardizedtests.procon.org...This website provides both sides of the argument on standardized testing; however, I believe that the cons outweigh the pros. |
48 | 80e3ce8f-2019-04-18T15:56:43Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting Thanks to Romanii for the debate! I will now be rebutting Con's case.CONTENTION ONE: Right to InactionCon writes that "with any human right in a democracy comes the right to abstain from exercising that right." This is, essentially, the crux of Con's argument here. That with every right comes a converse right of abstention. It is this notion that I shall be challenging.Firstly, in practice, certain rights impose obligations on citizens to fulfill. For instance, I have a right to a jury trial. If I were ever arrested and made to stand trial, the court, in furtherance of might right to a jury, can compel people to serve as jurors.You cannot escape jury duty simply because you want to. In other words, you cannot simply abstain from jury duty. Why is this so? Well, it is a duty of citizenship. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that due process is upheld in its legal system, and so therefore can force people to do things (like testify or serve on juries) in order to protect that interest. In simpler terms, the right to due process outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit, and thus I can be coerced to use my free time to serve the ends of due process.I will argue here that the right to effective, comprehensive, democratic governance outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit. Consider, choosing to abstain from voting is--for most people--a choice about free time. They just don't want to take the time to vote. If my right to democratic governance outweighs my right to dispense with my free time as I will, and if compulsory voting supports the former right sufficiently, compulsory voting is justified.The compelling benefit to society that compulsory voting serves is manifold, and includes: promoting democratic legitimacy, reducing violence, and promoting equality. I expound on all of these points in my case. These weighty concerns are sufficient to out balance concerns about free time and abstention, and thus, compulsory voting is justified.To summarize, "if there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. Voting is often viewed as an individual privilege, but it is also true that there are collective benefits from the participation of citizens in elections. Because all Americans benefit from having representative democracy as a form of government, all Americans benefit when others exercise the right to vote. The individual act of voting is essential to the collective's ability to have democratic government, and as such should not be waivable." [1]Secondly, "the theory of democracy is based upon the social contract between the government and the people. When a democracy is established, the people cease to be in a state of nature, where they are free to do whatever they choose, and become part of the community, bound by its laws. The people are the government, agreeing to live together and be bound by laws for mutual security. However, the duty of the citizen does not end simply by following the laws of the community; the citizen owes certain duties to the community. The government (community) must govern justly and with the consent of the governed, and, in return, the individual (citizen) must follow the laws of the community." [2]Whether or not we accept a social contract explanation of government, we can accept that membership in a country entails certain responsibilities, duties that run both directions. Citizens have a duty to the government, and the government has a duty to the people."The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing…Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold…it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout…It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [3]Free riders have shirked their duty to the state, and therefore are unjustifiably reaping the benefits when the government does good things for the people collectively. Thus, voting can be made compulsory to enforce this two-way relationship actually remains two-way, and to ensure that no one is unjustly gaming the system.Thirdly, Con states: "Even if Pro were to prove that making voting compulsory is 'beneficial,' that still wouldn't prove that compulsory voting is 'justified,' as the resolution states, because it would still be a violation of our right to inaction." Look at my Observation Two from last round, where I point out that I can show that an action is justified in two ways (1) that it is just or morally right, and (2) that it is reasonable or rational. Rights are typically expressed as moral concerns, and therefore if there is a "right" to abstention, I might not be able to show that CV is just or morally right; however, I could still show that CV is reasonable by showing that it is beneficial. So, Con is incorrect when he says that a right to abstention precludes me from affirming the resolution.Fourthly, as a matter of practical fact, Con's underlying assumption (i.e. that a right to X implies the converse right to not do X) is faulty. "Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll." [4]CONTENTION TWO: "Bad" VotingCon's basic premise here is that CV would lead to bad votes (a.k.a. "donkey" votes). His arguments are woefully unsubstantiated, and I will endeavor to show how, empirically, his arguments are false.Firstly, "empirical evidence casts further doubt on the hypothesis of random distortion: In Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that…there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes. It might be retorted that this only shows that compelling people to vote is a waste of time because deliberate informality ends up being the functional equivalent of abstention. The obvious response is that this is only true of a very small proportion of typical abstainers; the vast majority cast – or sincerely attempt to cast – valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout by as much as 30+ percentage points, one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged." [5]Secondly, if the empirics don't convince you, there are theoretical arguments out there that suggest that in places where CV is implemented, parties will go out of there way to educate voters more fully about issues and candidates. "Firstly, if conversion replaces mobilization as the main aim of parties during a campaign, they have an incentive to focus on policy rather than on 'hype,' which should in theory lead to an electorate better-informed about issues and policies. Secondly, if voters know in advance that they will be voting on election day and that they will have to choose from among the options on offer, they have greater reason to pay attention to the campaign than is the case when they can toy with the idea of not voting only to change their minds shortly before the election. The third reason is related to the impact of the universality of electoral campaigns under compulsory voting; if the assumption can be made that everyone will be voting, the election is more likely to become a topic of conversation among friends, relatives and colleagues, which should serve to inform people of relevant issues and the policy positions of parties." [4]"Participation breeds participation--people who take part in politics in one way tend to do so in another. Participation in the political process may bring about an interest in participation in other civic engagements, which in turn has a positive impact on the political competence among citizens. Therein, as Lijphart argues, compulsory voting could serve as a tool for civic education and political stimulation. The act of voting may also indirectly affect civic engagement by increasing the level of awareness of and interest in politics. Mandatory voting may spur people to gather information about politics and societal affairs in order to make a reasonable vote choice…compulsory voting should have a mobilizing and educating influence on citizens, also increasing the levels of political engagement more generally." [6]SOURCES1 - Source 6, R22 - Carmichael, Christopher W. Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 309-103 - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...4 - Source 4, R25 - Hill, Lisa. University of Adelaide, 2001, "Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting," Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 317 - Lundell, Krister. Professor Abo Akademi University, 2012, "Civic Participation and Political Trust: The Impact of Compulsory Voting," Representation, Vol. 48:2, p. 221Over to Con... |
18 | 37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres I would like to express my sincere thanks to frappe for accepting this challenge and for responding in such a eloquent and informed manner. I would also politely request the voters to acknowledge that my opponent extended me the courtesy of "home ground" in basing his rebuttals on the British, rather than the American, model of society: I certainly didn't anticipate this but I am very grateful. With regard to the role of churches in society, and the alleged benefits my opponent contends they provide, I would like to respond as follows: Con acknowledges that church attendance in Britain has decreased to a point whereby only a tiny fraction of citizens regularly attend church services, and those that do are mainly elderly which means that attendances is in terminal decline. Indeed, far more people obtain their spiritual sustenance from psychics, astrologers and fortune-tellers. These mystics and soothsayers provide spiritual comfort to their impressionable clients in exchange for money -they earn a living by giving their customers emotional support in exchange for cash, a bit like churches do, but unlike churches they pay tax on their income: when a punter crosses Rosie Lee's palm with silver, the crystal ball-gazing gypsy will dutifully record this financial transaction and scrupulously declare her full earnings when she diligently files her tax returns (gypsies are notoriously honest people) - and these taxes are used to benefit wider societies by paying for teachers, nurses, police officers and so on. Despite the lack of spiritual adherents though, the churches are making money hand over fist, mainly through their property investment portfolios: the Church of England alone netted a cool 19.1% on their �4.3 billion / $6.9 billion investments last year (1) - tax free, of course - but these windfalls do not benefit wider society at all because they either reinvest the money or spend it on providing themselves with munificent stipends and lavish, grace-in-favour accommodation. With reference to preserving historic buildings, the churches certainly have a moral responsibility to do this, but it is a responsibility they continually fail to discharge. The Church of England is one of the largest land-owners in Britain but if a parish church becomes uneconomic due to falling attendances, they will ruthlessly sell it off to the highest bidder. In rural areas, churches tend to be converted into luxury apartments (2) for affluent commuters while churches in urban areas are often converted into pubs: my old local pub in Muswell Hill, North London and also my old local pub when I lived in Aberdeen, Scotland were both formerly churches (3,4) - whereas in times gone by the vicar would have dispensed blessings the bartenders now dispense beers, wines and spirits from the same spot. Some parishioners may feel this is sacrilege, but the churches don't care about that: for them religion is all about one thing and one thing alone; cold, hard cash The poor and needy? Their welfare is the responsibility of the state and charities, not the churches, at least not as fare as they are concerned. Which brings me neatly to the issue of their charitable status. Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes: and these employees certainly do not live in grand houses and drive flash cars like so many vicars and priests do. Indeed, in America where televangelism is a $2-3 billion, unregulated, untaxed industry, pastors are even more extravagant. For example, preacher Kenneth Copeland "lives in an 18,000 square foot home outside Ft. Worth, Texas worth $6 million. It has beautiful water views that comes complete with a boat house. But that's not all. Copeland is an avid pilot, and his pride and joy is a $20 million Cessna Citation jet. It's the fastest private jet money can buy. He said he needed it to better serve the Lord, and proudly did a fly by for his followers after the church bought it." (5) If it was revealed that donations to a charity were being used to fund lavish lifestyles of charity workers rather than being spent on good causes, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and the organisation would, in all probability, loose it's charitable status. So what's so special about the church? Why are they allowed to use their income to feather their nests tax-free? The answer is undue reverence for an ancient institution that no longer has any relevance to the vast majority of people in 21st Century Britain. To conclude, I am not arguing that there is no place in society for religious organisations, merely that they should pay their way like any other for-profit organisation and that the should be subject to tax. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://www.locationworks.com... (3) http://www.oneills.co.uk... (4) http://www.pbdevco.com... (5) http://www.insideedition.com... |
36 | 8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00004-000 | Is golf a sport? | Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Negative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be "more of a sport" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is "more of a sport" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that "Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. " and "golf on the other hand is a SPORT" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are "often of a competitive nature", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: "Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. "(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that "Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. " Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that "Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that "any one" can succeed in. "any one" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that " A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. " I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or "more of a sport" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
14 | d43662b5-2019-04-18T15:54:59Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | PC Gaming (pro) vs Console Gaming (con) Let's get this heated debaet under way! ==============================================================================CostFact of the matter is that a PC Gaming is going to cost you less than Console Gaming in the long run. The reasoning for this is quite simple, look at this picture(If this picture is too small - then check out the website) [1]: Now this graph shows a couple of key things. It is more expensive to buy a gaming PC, the Consoles are definately cheaper. Then this chart shows that the average PC game is $40 and an average Xbox/PlayStation game is $60. The chart then uses an example in which someone were to buy 40 games between now and the next generation of consoles (buying 40 games in 8 years is quite common. That's 5 games a year). Here is where we start seeing the cost diferences. Since Console games are more expensive, in 8 years a person would spend $2,400 on games, where as a PC gamer would only spend $1,600. Furthermore, we must account for 8 years of Xbox live/PSN susbscription fees. One might argue that you don't need to buy any subscription fees, but let's be honest here. Buying a Console without having multiplayer is like buying a house without any furniture. You don't need to buy furniture. .. but at the end of the day it's pretty useless without it. Xbox will cost $480, while PS4 will have $400 with 8 years of paying the subscription. Considering everything that is present in the graph - taking the Route of PC Gaming will cost you $2,248 while Console Gaming will cost you $3,200 - $3,380. The chart also has some notes that it makes, and it's a good idea to go over these. First of all, the Gaming PC that was $650 is able to run games at 60 FPS, so we aren't talking about a crappy PC here. We are talking about something that can run pretty much every game. It's clear that a PC will save you money in the long run, but it will actually start saving you money as short as a year. Conclusion: While the intital cost of a PC might be more than the cost of the Consoles, the PC will start saving you money in as short as a year. Over the course of 8 years (until the release of the next generation of Consoles), you will save $1,036 (Xbox One) or $856 (PS4). No matter which way you look at it - taking everything into consideration , PC Gaming is cheaper than Console Gaming. ModsMods are modifications that players can make to games. Currently, none of the consoles have mod support. Mods add more content, and an enhance one's gaming experience. For example, let's take the game Skyrim. Skyrim is a great game, and it has hundreds of hours worth of content packed into it. However, as awesome as it is, the modding community makes it 100x better. Why? Because players can add things into the game that may not be there. Is there an item that you want in the game? Done. Are you done with the game? Do you want more content? There are mods that add more content than DLC's! Want a certain type of armor in game? Done. Practically anything you could think of can be added with mods. They enhance the user's experience with the game. Not everyone may like downloading mods, and that's fine. But we have to look at the whole community of gaming. Many people would like the opportunity to download mods so that it can enhance their game, and consoles just don't support mods. Conclusion: Mods are only supported on PC and not Console. Mods enhance the user's experience of the game by adding items, content, etc. (virtually anything). We can conclude that being a PC Gamer will envoke a better experience with games than a Console Gamer, because Console Gamers don't have access to mods. Game TitlesSome people think that Consoles have better exclusive titles than PC. However, fact of the matter is that PC has more exclusive titles than Consoles, and PC titles are often better than the Console exclusives.1. First of all it's worth noting that a LOT of popular games on consoles were orginially PC games. For example, Call of Duty [2], Battlefield [3], Minecraft [4], etc. 2. Furthermore, it is to be noted that there are many types of games that you can not play on Consoles. For example, MOBA's, MMORPG's, Point-and-Click Type Games (Ex. Diablo, Torchlight 2, etc. ).3. There are more PC exclusive titles than Console Exclusive titles (I couldn't find a smaller image) [5]: There aren't many Console Exclsives that grab my attention. The only titles I can think of are Gears of War or maybe Halo. But even these titles aren't as good as the PC exclusives such as, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2 (This game is 100x better than Halo). None of the Console titles truly are interesting to me - and the ones that are were once PC titles. If my opponent wants to make a list of good console exclusive titles and try to convince me that there are good exclusives on console, compared to exclusives on PC, he can [try to] do so. Conclusion: PC games have many more exculive titles when compared to Consoles. They have many more indie games that tend to come to consoles. Many popular games that are currently Consoles started out onna PC. Since none of the Console exclusives are very interesting, and since their PC counterparts are a LOT better. PC games are better than Console games. EsportsEsports are somewhat new, but they are defiinetely growing. I'm not sure how competetive Console Gaming is, but PC Gaming can get VERY COMPETETIVE. I'm sure that they are lots of competitions for prizes for Console Players, but there is just a LOT more for PC gamers. Some of the biggest Esports tend to be MOBA's such as League of Legends and Dota 2, which aren't availaable on the Console. And this is BIG. For example: As you can see there are a LOT of players that get involvedConclusion: PC gamers tend to be more competetive. As a result the Community of gaming tends to grow. Such big sporting events are not possible on Consoles. Backwards CompatibilityConsoles are not backwards compatible. That means that if I were to buy a game on PS3 it's not going to be available on PS4 unless I buy the PS4 version. I need to pay another $60 for a game that I already bought. This is not the case with PC. Steam will always sync all of the games that you have bought to any computer that you have. And for the games that are not on Steam - they all have accounts, and once the game is downloaded and you log into your account, all of the data will be saved, which is not the case with the ConsolesConclusion: PC games are backwards compatible which means that you don't have to rebuy the game if you were to buy another PC. Consoles are not backwards compatible, which means you must buy the game again if you want to play it on a different console or another generation of the same console. Obviously the PC is better in this regaurd. Hardware and Graphics:It is an undeniable fact that the PC has better graphics. I think my opponent is aware of this already, but I will elaborate a little bit:1. The Graphics are MUCH better. The $650 PC mentioned above should be able to run games on better graphics than the Xbox One/PS4.2. The Hardware on a PC is upgradable. With all of that money that you can save with a PC you can upgrade your Hardware every couple of years. Mind you that the PC will already be better than the Consoles from the get-go, but upgrading the Hardware will make it even better. Conclusion: The Graphics on a PC are much better than Console. Also, the upgradable hardware make the PC run better, where as you can't upgrade the hardware in a consoleSimplicityI conceed this point. I agree that a Console is more simple and straighforward. I 100% agree with that. Conclusion: The argument about simplicity goes to Con. I conceed that argumentCommunity:The PC community tends to be more mature than the Console Community. I don't mean to say that Mature Players don't play on Console or that Immature players don't play on PC. But the majority of PC players are going to be more mature than console playersConclusion: PC has more mature players, which means it envokes genearlly a better experience. Controls:This comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. But PC wins here because:1. Keyboard and Mouse is MUCH more precise than a Controller2. PC's will let you add controllers for games with controller support, but a Console will never let you add a Keyboard and Mouse to play withConclusion: Keyboard and Moues is more precise. Furthermore, PC will let you use controller while Console won't let you use a Keyboard. We can conclude that PC will allow for more vareity of controls and will be more precise when using mouse and keyboardCommunicating In-Game:Communicating in game can be done with Console and PC, but the PC wins here because it has the ability to text chat. The consoles have the ability to text chat as well. .. but it's pretty useles. It takes like 5 minutes to type a sentence. With a PC you can talk with a mic or you can type - where as in Console you are limited talking with a mic. So if you just wanted to tell your friend one quick thing, you would have to turn on voice chat instead of just typing it in, which would have taken only a couple of seconds. Conclusion: PC offers Text and Voice chat. While Console offers text chat, it's pretty much useless, and you can only use voice chat. ==============================================================================I will stop right here. Overall PC gaming is better for the reasons i have mentioned above. I look forward to my opponents arguments. Next round will be rebuttals =)==============================================================================Soucres:[1] . http://mp1st.com......[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org......(series)[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...... [6] . http://www.redditian.com... |
10 | 71b13b60-2019-04-18T14:42:24Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccinations are more beneficial than harmful Your welcome for welcoming you back."if deaths decline in the category of those infected by a particular disease, then that would be relevant to the discussion."It is somewhat relevant, but making the conclusion that the diseases are going away completely based on the mortality rates is incorrect. "death is traceable specifically to a particular pathology and those deaths due to that pathology" "So, in these instances where death is traceable specifically to a particular pathology and those deaths due to that pathology are declining before the immunizations are introduced historically, then the obvious question is as follows: Are vaccines doing any good that was not already being ameliorated beforehand?"Con mistakenly thinks that death is the only bad outcome of a disease. There's a reason why we want the diseases to be eradicated, not just the mortality rate. For example, measles can cause permanently damaging encephalitis and pneumonia [1]. Polio (as you may know already) can cause lifelong paralysis (hopefully I don't need a source for this. Everyone should know this already). Shingles can cause post-herpetic neuralgia [2]. If you need more, feel free to research terrible symptoms caused by diseases. So, to answer your question, yes! Vaccines are pulling down infection rates, not just the mortality rates you cling on to. As I've said before, those mortality rates are dropping most likely due to health and hygiene advances. "If we cannot document that or the improvement is attributable to healthy living environments, better exercise, more vitamins in food, etc., then we cannot know that the vaccines are not creating more harm than benefit. That is, after all, the resolution before us."We do know that vaccines are creating more benefit than harm. I've described how the vaccine works in normal biological terms. Since you like to talk about how the mortality rates are decreasing before vaccination, take a look at the graph I've shown you. It actually has two graphs, one about cases/year, and the other about deaths/year. As you can see, your claim is correct; mortality rates have gone down. However, the incidence rate has not shown any signs of steady dropping until the vaccine was introduced. After that, incidence rates fell to the floor."What about the other pathologies"I think you mean "pathogens," not "the sciences of the causes and effects of diseases." In any case, here are graphs of the other pathogens. Here is a nice graph of the exact same diseases you mentioned, minus typhoid. As you can see, these are deaths per 100,000, not cases per 100,000.Wow, I actually can't find any graphs about scarlet fever cases per year. I genuinely apologize for this. Here is possibly the only (good) graph I could find about pertussis cases/year. As you can see, when the vaccine was introduced in the 1940's, cases went down. Picture source: http://holisticsquid.com... s://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net...*Qucy4QoZhb_CBQjTdNrtSw.png" alt="" />Here is the diphtheria cases/year graph. The trend follows the other graphs well. After the vaccine was introduced, incidence rates went down.Hopefully, I've proven my point that looking at mortality rates only is not a good argument.Did that satisfy your curiosity? ;)NOTE: If you do find a scarlet fever case/year graph, go ahead and show us, because every single graph that I could find was about mortality rates."Using the rabies vaccine as a counter-example to the case when the infected can become better is not quite valid since that vaccine is not recommended for the general public, unless there is specific reason to believe that rabies contamination may be imminent and it does have enough risks to the point that it is not even recommended for pregnant women. "How is it not quite valid? You asked for a vaccine that could allow someone to be better, and I gave you an example. A vaccine that is recommended to the general public would be a preventative vaccine. You asked for a vaccine-related cure, and I delivered. Don't just sweep it away because it's "not recommended for the general public." I found your original argument about herd immunity: "This is an attempt to rescue belief in vaccines because it is acknowledged that vaccines do not really accomplish anything except to keep the same number of people uninfected in society." My (second) reply to this would be: Isn't that what preventative measures are supposed to do?"it [the rabies vaccination] does have enough risks to the point that it is not even recommended for pregnant women."You and your source do not specify whether the "rabies vaccination" in question is a pre-exposure or post-exposure. According to sources [2] and [3], being pregnant is not a contraindication to rabies postexposure prophylaxis. Also, rabies poses a 100% risk of death to the mother, as well an indeterminate risk to the fetus. [3]"People actually start to believe that if 80% or 90% of the population has gotten this "quick fix" then the rest of the population can become infected and they will be fine. "If you think about it, it makes sense. But for it to make sense to you, you must accept that vaccines have a high success rate in preventing diseases. According to [5], 90-95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. If this many people have a high percentage chance of being immune to a disease, than the disease in question can only infect so many people before running out of options. Think of it like a biological buffer zone."That's totally absurd!"Here, Con uses an example of the "personal incredulity" fallacy. [6]"In fact, unless the immune system is healthy, no immunization can perform the theoretical function that it is supposed to."It is generally accepted that your immune system has to be strong enough to defeat a nearly harmless virus inside your body for your vaccine to work."With regard to the problems inherent in the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine, you seemed to have missed the argument presented. Getting vaccinated to prevent natural chicken pox infection in childhood leads to greater complications, including death, in adulthood."You seem to have missed the refutation I presented. If you didn't understand, allow me to clarify. The link I showed you in my refutation from last round showed that mortality rates were going down. You, on the other hand, suggest that getting vaccinated would cause death in adulthood. According to your logic, that means the mortality rates should be going up. But they're not, which means (to put it bluntly) you're wrong. Also, your source recommends getting children infected with chicken pox. Don't believe me? Look at this line I took from your source. "vaccination renders the elderly more apt to shingles infections, because the herd has now lost the continued and benign re-exposures to children with chicken pox." Here's some more fun quotes from your source. " Vaccinators miss the point that the body defends most efficiently as a result of ongoing re-exposure." Basically, Suzanne Humphries, M.D. wishes for diseases to stay. The statement seems harmless, until you consider the fact that she is indirectly campaigning against the eradication of certain diseases. Here's more. "Vaccinated mothers may have vaccine immunity, which is not the same immunologically, as natural immunity. One of the major differences in the vaccine-induced immunity is that it cannot be passed from mother to infant." Mrs. Humphrey forgets that to get natural immunity, you first have to be infected, which is what we're trying to stop. I could probably go on, but I have about 2000 characters left and I want to address your other points.About Andrew Wakefield's study, take a look at source [7]. You can just skim over it, but it shows details about how Wakefield's study was proven wrong. This source is free from ad hominem attacks (at least I hope so, I skimmed over it too).Now, about the study that showed there may have been a link, the percentages were so close together it could have been some other factor that caused the unvaccinated to have a higher percentage. If I compare the two ratios, the two numbers were off by only 0.00005! That number is so small that it's too early to jump to conclusions and say "the vaccinated has a higher rate. Therefore, the vaccine caused autism." In fact, I would say that, since the numbers were so close together that there was no real difference at all! Also, since the amount of unvaccinated children was relatively small, I could say that, according to the law of large numbers, it was not accurate enough to be completely sure.Oh geez, 900 characters left. I better make this quick.I have done further research on the SV40 virus, and have found out the evidence on SV40 does not suggest a link to cancer in humans. [8]About the government lying to us, people have been using vaccines before the government started turning corrupt. If the government has been lying to us about vaccine effectiveness, we could see it in the graphs. I agree, nothing justifies a government lying to it's citizens, and part of me wonders if this conversation would have existed if the government kept a clean profile. I have refuted most, if not all of your arguments, and hopefully I have done a good enough job. Please don't vote solely on forfeiture. Good luck to Con and vote Pro![1]http://www.cdc.gov... [2]http://www.nhs.uk... [3]http://www.cdc.gov...[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5]http://www.iflscience.com...[6]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[7]http://www.csicop.org... [8]http://www.cancer.org... |
49 | 6f0bf5f7-2019-04-18T15:48:21Z-00004-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | God Probably Doesn't Exist Ontological ArgumentDefinitions D1) A positive property: A property that does not lessen the excellence of some entity that has the property, but whose negation does lessen the excellence of the entity. [1] D2) Something has necessary existence (from now on, 'Ne. Ex. )' iff: F (x has F) and y(y has F) and y(y has F & y=x)]. D3) Something is strongly positive (from now on 'EA') iff: (having A essentially is a positive property). The Argument Here is the argument laid out: P1) If 'A' is any strongly positive property, then, necessarily, there exists a being that both exists necessarily and essentially possesses 'A'. P2) The properties of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are strongly positive properties P3) To possess a conjunct of strongly positive properties is a strongly positive property C) There exists a being which exists necessarily and essentially possesses omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection (from 1,2,3)Defence of P1) Take the axioms: F1) If A is positive, then ~A is not positive. F2) If A is positive and A entails B, then B is positive F3) Necessary existence is positive. These axioms are self evident. If some excellence 'perfect power' is positive, then 'no power' is not positive. The same is true of necessity: to necessarily exist is an excellence and to contingently exist detracts from excellence. Also, if some excellence holds true, then anything it entails cannot be non-excellent (otherwise, it would not be an excellence). From the axioms F1-3, we can form our first theorem (P1): T1) if A is any strongly positive property, then there exists a being that exists necessarily and essentially has A Proof of T1 Take these subsidiaries: Lemma 1: If X has necessary existence, then (X has Ne. Ex), Proof: By S4: Lemma 2: For any property B, suppose x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has B). Then: x(x has Ne. Ex. and (x has B)). Proof: Through existential instantiation, suppose X has Necessary existence and X has B. From Lemma 1, necessarily, X has necessary existence: x(x has Ne. Ex). Now, take system B of modal logic (if p, then p). Then, x (x has Ne. Ex. and (x has B)). Thus , if x Fx, then xFx. (from lemma 2) quod erat demonstratum. Lemma 3: If A and B are positive, then A and B are compossible. D4) A conjunct of properties p is compossible iff possibly there is an entity that possibly exemplifies all the members of p. Proof: For reductio, suppose positive properties A and B are incompossible. then, A entails ~B. But this contradicts F2. As both Ne. Ex and EA are positive (from D1,3,F3) it follows that they are compossible (from Lemma 3). Thus, the metaphysical possibility of the being described in T1 is established. We are now in a position to prove T1: Assume the conjunction 'p' of some entity having Ne. Ex. and EA. By Lemma 3 and S5, there possibly exists some X that p in all possible worlds. Therefore, x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has EA). As this would be a conceptual truth, x(x has Ne. Ex. and x has EA). Now apply S5 to the equation. It then follows that there exists some x which has Ne. Ex and EA (removing the " "from the equation). But through S5, it follows that there exists some x which has both Ne. Ex and EA, for essentiality under S5 is an equivalence relation in accessible possible worlds such that if x is possibly essentially a, then x is a in all possible worlds. Therefore T1, quod erat demonstratum. Defence of P2) and P3)F4) Essential moral perfection, essential omniscience, and essential omnipotence are strongly positive properties Proof: taking D2 and the excellence view of positive properties; essential omnipotence, essential omniscience and essential moral perfection are all positive properties, as they all increase the excellence of a being and their negations (impotence, ignorance, morally abhorrent) lessen the excellence of the said being. F5) To essentially possess a conjunct of compossible, strongly positive properties is strongly positive. Proof: If every single property in a conjunct is positive, then to possess all of them, rather fewer than all, is positive, for it does not detract from the excellence of the entity but its negation (to possess fewer than every positive property) does detract from excellence. To essentially possess this is strongly positive. Defence of C1) T2) From F1-5), there necessarily exists a being who is maximally positive, posessing essential omnipotence, essential omniscience, and essential moral perfection, et hoc omnes intelligunt deum. Proof of T2) First we will need the following lemma: Lemma 4: if A is strongly positive, so is EA. Proof: EA --> EEA follows from S4: Suppose A is strongly positive. By F1, so too is EA. Suppose P is the property of essentially possessing all EA properties. By Lemma 4, Where A is strongly positive, then if an entity has every A, then it has EA. By F1 and F5, P is a strongly positive property. Therefore, by T1, T2 entails. Therefore, God exists. Cosmological Argument Now, for a cosmological argument from contingency (contingency being facts that are neither tautological nor impossible). [2] 1) Every contingent fact has an explanation 2) There exists a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts (BCCF) 3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4) This explanation must involve a necessary being 5) Therefore, there exists an external, necessary being that is the cause of all contingent facts. The focus will be on P1, as the other premises are less controversial, less likely to be contested and obvious given P1. Defence of P1) For the first premise, I must defend some version of a non-local Causal Principle that suggests that 'every contingent fact has an explanation'. So what sort of principle shall we use? I'll proposing something like the following sub-syllogism: T1) If E can have an explanation, then E has an explanation T2) Every contingent fact can have an explanation C) Therefore, every contingent fact has an explanation T2) needs little support; it is a weak claim that is evident by the very nature of contingency. And even if we assume the PSR or CP to be false, any contingent fact still possibly has an explanation, so this is uncontroversial. So the focus will be on T1), so I'll commence with that. It will be based on the modality of counterfactuals. Proof of T1) First, take two lemmas. Lemma 1) Take Lewisian counterfactual semantics: that p --->q holds iff there is a p&q world that is more similar to the actual world than any p&~q world, or p is necessarily false. [3] We need not take the full account for the argument though. A weaker version can be held: viz. that if p --->q, we should move to metaphysically relevantly similar worlds where p holds and see whether q holds. [4] This is true simply because there is no other means to figure out counterfactuals except in subjunctive investigation. This weaker account also has the advantage that it is void of the criticism of Lewisian semantics. Lemma 2) If p, then p. This is the Brouwer axiom (system B in modal logic). We are now in a position to prove the following conditional: F1) (q&p&M~p)--->(~p --->(p --->q)) In other words; say p and q actually hold, and that in a relevantly similar possible world, p does not hold. Therefore, it is metaphysically possible that p does not hold. So we have the antecedant; q&p&M~p. By Lemma 2, and the antecedent, it is the case in the relevantly similar world that ~p, possibly p and possibly q. Thus, ~p actually holds, but as p and q possibly hold, then p -->q. Now take the following lemmas (Where ==> is entailment) Lemma 3)(p==>q)-->(p -->q) Proof: Entailment is equivalent to necessary conditional. Lemma 4)((p -->q)&(p -->~q))==>~Mp Proof: if some proposition necessarily entails a contradiction (both q and ~q), then it cannot be possible. We are now in a position to prove T1. Let q be the proposition that event E occurs and possibly has an explanation (id est, E is contingent). And, for a reductio, suppose p is the proposition that E has no explanation. If E can have an explanation, then it is metaphysically possible that E has an explanation. By F1, the following occurs: ~p -->(p -->q) Let w be a possible world where E has an explanation. Thus in w, E has an explanation G. On the dependency principle: (if A is the explanation of B, and there is no C that causes B(for overdetermination) then if A were not to exist, then neither would B) then in w, if G were not to exist, then neither would E. Thus, p -->~q. As this is true at every world in which q has a cause, the following arises: ~p -->(p -->~q). Or, in worlds where E does not have any explanans, if E does not have an explanation, then E does not occur. But p -->~q is equivalent to ~(p -->q). So; ~p -->~(p -->q) and therefore, by Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, causes a contradiction, and thus, it is not metaphysically possible that p, contrary to the original assumption that p. Defence of P2 What might the 'BCCF' be? Simply, it is the aggregate of all contingent facts, objects, propositions, etc. in the actual world. [5] This itself must be contingent, by its very nature: a conjunct of contingency cannot be anything other than contingent. Defence of P3 This follows from P1. If the BCCF is a contingent fact, and all contingent facts have and explanation, then the BCCF has an explanation. Defence of P4 We must now deduce the nature of the explicans. It must be either necessary or contingent (there is no other option). If it is contingent, then it is included in the BCCF and no progress is made - by P1, it still needs to be explained. And, pace Descartes, nothing can be causa sui or explanatory prior to itself. Thus, the explanation must be necessary. Defence of P5 So, we must admit the existence of a necessary, external cause, from Premises 1-4. Conclusion I have shown that via the nature of positive properties and of contingency, through certain axioms, God must exist. Sources in comments |
20 | 84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00004-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I must correct my opponent first of all, in that I did read his response. It was not specified in the first round as to how an average person is defined. In fact, the parameters he sets up are so strange that it becomes impossible to adapt them in any manner of coherency. I will illustrate the importance of this later. I will start my response by saying that my opponent's failure is not in his presentation of data (which I believe to be faulty anyhow), but in his very resolution. My opponent was simply wrong when he said that I am excluded from the realm of "average healthy person". In fact, I believe there are huge, blatant errors in his classification of an "average" person to begin with. What my opponent lists as exceptions in proper detail are the following: 1. Pregnant women 2. Diabetics 3. People on prescription medication 4. People who drive or operate heavy machinery. The percentage of pregnant women in the population is not negligible, but still a small percentage. However, my opponent's key argument about the "Average" person seems to conflict heavily with his resolution statement. A. My opponent's restriction on people who drive. . http://wiki.answers.com... The number of people who drive in America is roughly 30 million, an extraordinarily conservative calculation based on the following facts derived from my source: 1. There are roughly 60 million registered cars 2. There are roughly 2 cars to each person This does not include cars which are functional and unregistered, or people who share cars/rent cars. As such, the most conservative would be 30 million out of 300 million or roughly 10% of the population. If my opponent is excluding drivers from his definition of an "Average" person, what will he restrict next? People who eat hamburgers? People who watch baseball? B. Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics. There are currently 24 million diabetics in this country and not a single one of them is "average" according to my opponent. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent medical conditions today, affecting over 8% of all Americans. While this number may seem insignificant, please consider how many people in a room of 100 will suffer dire consequences from what my opponent proposes. C. And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once. . http://www.medscape.com... A key factoid for any Pharmacy student or medical student in general is the knowledge that alcohol interacts negatively with most if not all prescription medication. The physiology is complicated to explain, but generally speaking, both alcohol and prescription medications are processed by the liver, and simultaneous processing can lead to disastrous results. Alcohol in moderate amounts may have a slightly positive effect on blood pressure if taken over time and regularly, but when combined with blood pressure medications they can have terrible side effects, amplifying the effects of blood pressure medications. Since most blood pressure medications work throughout the day, and since alcohol has a much shorter cycle, it can have unpredictable effects on people taking those medications. Cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, interact violently with alcohol, with many being completely contraindicated since it could lead to liver toxicity and death. . http://askville.amazon.com... Both Cholesterol and Blood pressure medications make up the vast majority of prescription drugs in America. It is absurd not to categorize them as "average". How then, can my opponent continue to speak about beer being healthy for the average person, when he clearly has no idea what the average person is, and when he is heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen? In addition to those issues, my opponent also has poor justification for classifying me outside the realm of "average". It would be acceptable for him to say that my allergy to alcohol is rare, but it should not discount me from his population. It would be more extraordinary for a person to not have any allergies at all than to react badly to alcohol. There should be no question that I am both an average person and healthy, because I am. It just so happens that I have a sensitivity to alcohol. Though not exactly an allergy, my hypersensitivity to alcohol stems from the "Asian Curse", a lack of the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks ethanol down into acetic acid. The lack of this enzyme causes the toxic intermediate acetaldehyde to build up in larger concentrations for people like myself, leading to terrible side effects and exaggerated effects of alcohol consumption in shorter lengths of time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Half of the Asian population is categorized as having this sensitivity, thus, amongst my fellow Asians, I am average. Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd. Not only is he restricting a massive number of "average" Americans (Americans who would be greatly harmed by beer as opposed to milk) from his resolution, but he also inexplicably wishes the audience to believe that the presence of an ethic trait is enough to categorize a person as abnormal. Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you! " in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise? I did not understand my opponent's overly complicated explanation as to what is "average" or not, but I consider myself a healthy and average person. What law states that the average person must react well to alcohol? As such, I must restate my argument: My opponent is addressing me in both resolutions. I would have much more health detriment from drinking beer than from drinking milk. Thus, the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you. |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00016-000 | Should social security be privatized? | The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.[1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea.[2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check. Even more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts.[3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today's generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.' The alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits.[4] [1] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [3] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html |
32 | 2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00017-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada's 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 |
39 | e3b9f8b-2019-04-18T16:33:58Z-00002-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family. |
31 | e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Eating meat is good for your health 1. Pro claims that I have cited weak studies, while himself citing older studies from the same institution [1]. Most of pro's sources are opinion articles from internet websites, whereas the majority of mine are peer-reviewed, scientific publications, from respected journals. If the content of pro's sources is supported by the scientific literature, I encourage pro to demonstrate this. The Harvard publication that pro cites did not find that red meat consumption does not reduce mortality, let alone cancer related mortality, as was found in the more recent Harvard study that I cited above. 2. Pro claims consuming a selenium containing compound which also contains elements that contribute to cancer is somehow healthy in comparison with getting selenium from other sources that lack such mutagens, such as nuts, cereals, mushrooms or eggs. If selenium were absorbed through the lungs, for arguments sake, adding this compound to cigarettes would not mean that they were therefore healthy. 3. Pro argues that I only argue against consumption of 'processed' red meat. As you can see by reading my first round, this is clearly false. The World Cancer Research Fund's recommendation of less than 300g per week applies only to unprocessed red meats. Their recommendation regarding processed meats is that there is no safe level of consumption whatsoever. Pro has misrepresented my argument, as well as my sources in this assertion (see WCRF reference from my first round). My argument is against the consumption of all red meat, whether processed or unprocessed, as well as all processed meats (whether red or not). 4. Pro's webMD source is almost 10 years old and seems to conflict drastically with more reliable sources i.e. the peer-reviewed literature. This quote sums up the science regarding the health effects of a vegetarian diet: "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in non-vegetarians.[2][3] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[4]" "Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[5] lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[6] dementias such as Alzheimer"s disease and other disorders.[7] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[8]" 5. While I am aware of the limitations of correlational studies, the extent that these studies have gone to in order to control for confounding factors is quite impressive. The recent Harvard study, for example, controlled for every possible confound mentioned by pro above (including smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, etc.). In other words, the statistics that pro presented regarding vegetarians and other lifestyle parameters are irrelevant because the studies I cited controlled for all of these. Pro's argument against the science here is reminiscent of tobacco companies less than only a few decades ago. 6. The vast majority of epidemiological studies demonstrate the links mentioned above, and contrary to pro's claims the World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 recommendations were far from being based solely on correlational data. As stated above, research was not only correlational, but also mechanistic and experimental in origin (characterization of mutagens, characterization of DNA damage in human cells after a meat meal in comparison with control non-meat meal - cited in round 1). 7. Pro picks out one study which found no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. This does not outweigh the majority of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies. 8. If you agree with pro in that the over 200 scientists from 30 different countries are practicing pseudo-science, along with the researchers responsible for the over 7000 peer-reviewed publications that these scientists summarized, as well as Harvard Medical School's leading researchers, then vote pro in this debate. Conclusion: Pro has seemingly misread the core of my argument, and misrepresented my sources. Pro claims that my sources are weak, but presents sources that are for the most part unreliable, whereas mine are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Pro uses logical fallacy in claiming that eating a selenium containing but carcinogenic compound is healthy in comparison with a selenium containing, non carcinogenic food source. Pro claims that red meat consumption lowers cancer risk, but this claim is at direct odds with the vast majority of epidemiological evidence showing that meat consumers get more cancer, and die more prematurely, even when studies controlled for all of the possible confounds mentioned by pro above (alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity etc.). If respected scientific journals such as those that I have cited, and organizations such as the WCRF and Harvard Medical School are pseudo-science, then I do not know what pro considers to be real science. In light of these facts I urge you to vote con. References: [1] Red Meat Consumption and Mortality; An Pan, Qi Sun, Adam M. Bernstein, Matthias B. Schulze, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Archives of Internal Medicine, online March 12, 2012 Versus http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [2] http://www.vrg.org... [3] Key et al. Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70 (3): 516S. [4] Fraser G. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases?Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1607S"12S. [5] Appleby, P.; Thorogood, M.; Mann, J.; Key, T. (1998). "Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol". International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22 (5): 454"460. [6] Rizzo NS, Sabat" J, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Fraser GE. Vegetarian dietary patterns are associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome: The Adventist Health Study-2. Diabetes Care. 2011 May;34(5):1225-7 [7] Mattson, Mark P. Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. [8] Maggie Fox, Meat raises lung cancer risk, too, study finds, Reuters, December 10, 2007; A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk, PLoS Medicine. April 21, 2008. I believe that this is the final round; it was a pleasure debating you, Mirza. All the best for your final round and I anxiously await votes. |
6 | bc93daf7-2019-04-18T11:22:56Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Tuition-Free College https://nortonnorris.com... 1. The money has to come from somewhere, more taxes for the upper-middle and upper class. 2. Younger generations won't know how to handle finances. 3. Devalues a college degree. Students may not go to class because they are getting their money's worth, it's free. 4. TOO MANY people would go to college. Again taxes will go up for upper classes. 5. With more people choosing to attend public colleges because of their tuition-free status, many schools might have to create wait lists or expand the ones they already have. State budgets could become strained, which might lead to cuts and decreased access to the programs that students want to take. 6. Public colleges and universities might become less worried about wasteful spending since they won't have to compete with other schools on cost. And that could strain public budgets even further. |
30 | 77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00001-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. I agree with the definitions except a concealed weapon will be a licensed weapon that is concealed appropriately WITH necessary training. My contentions rebut my opponents arguments. Contention 1As stated with my disagreement of definition of concealed weapon. The teachers should have adequate training before being able to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Many scenarios require violence to combat violence. This is a cold hard truth. The difference is, the school teachers would be combating IMMORAL violence with MORAL violence. For example, if a school shooter came into a school with the intention to kill 20 innocent people in the school. Perhaps this school shooter makes it in the school and starts shooting, he shoots 11 people, at that point a concealed weapons carrier fires and kills the shooter. In this example 12 people would be killed, but 20 were intended to be killed. In reality, the concealed weapons carrier killed one person but saved 9 lives. What is more moral, letting more people die without killing, or killing to save lives? The point is, if a mentally deranged person has an eager intent to shoot up a school, they'll probably do it, the teachers should have help in saving as many lives as possible. Contention 2There are also teachers with psychological problems. Firstly, I would suggest that all teachers who are legible for carrying a concealed weapon on campus would be subject to a psychological test. Secondly, it is possible even after the psychological test the teacher still has some problem. So one day in an extreme and unlikely scenario they do pull a gun on one or several students and start shooting. Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher before more innocent lives are taking, thus saving lives of the innocent. Contention 3Our governments do not have enough police officers to have multiple officers per campus. The average amount of police officers per capita is 265.7 per 100,000 people. (1) With a low amount of police officers they will not be able to take out the offender and save lives quick enough since they'll have to cover a lot of ground on campus. If most of the teachers on campus had a concealed weapon and were trained accordingly they could save more lives from being taken from the offender as opposed to a few police per each campus. Enforcing security gates more closely will help prevent but will not be a 100% guarantee of prevention. My opponent has also stated 3 in 4 gunmen turn on their own community and claims it from TIME magazine but doesn't give link to the article. I can't be sure if its true but if it is, as I stated earlier in Contention 2, if a teacher turned on the students, there would be enough sane teachers to take out the out of control teacher. My opponent has stated we should have rehabilitation for the suspect in question. I agree with this if we know the suspected offender potentially has plans of having a shooting spree in a school. However, we can't always know if somebody has this terrible plan of killing innocent people in school. So when such a person comes along into a school without notice, the teachers should have to potential to save as many lives as possible. My opponents concludes by stating we should not add another aspect of violence. I have already differentiated the difference between immoral (unnecessary) violence and moral (necessary) violence. Moral violence saves lives more than it takes. (1) . http://www.nationmaster.com... |
32 | 4766341a-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | kevin likes bears KEVIN DOES NOT DO THIS, HE Castrates THEM USING HIS MOUTH. |
38 | d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00007-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana I have already debated jamccartney on this very issue. However, my defeat was justified. I was on vacation, had horrible internet, and thus my argument was horrible. I am now ready to try again. I challenge my good friend jamccartney to this debate. This debate will follow a judge voting system. Each debater has 72 hours to present his argument. There will be four total rounds. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept this debate. In the second round, my opponent and I will present our main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. In the third round, my opponent and I will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. In the fourth and final round, we will offer final rebuttals and write conclusions, which will summarize the debate. All sources will be cited using the MLA format. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization will be used. There will be no forfeiture or concession. This debate will be rational, mature, logical, and factual. Opinions will only be stated when supported by facts. I look forward to this debate and await my opponent's acceptance. |
46 | 91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00005-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as "packets," comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like "15Mbps plan", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality. |
12 | a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. ConR1: No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.Pro: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting.ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina.ConR1: If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.Pro: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women.ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it.Pro: Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women.Con: That proves nothing... Pro: If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child?Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution?Pro: Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive.Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? |
17 | 4ab35585-2019-04-18T11:47:33Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | should marijwana only Be legalized only for Medicinal purposes Nothing will stop the recreational use of marijuana, so the legalization of marijuana would benefit everyone. Those who use marijuana as a recreation drug would not have to worry about getting in trouble, we as taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as many taxes, and people like teachers would get higher salaries. So please tell me why we shouldn't legalize recreational marijuana when it has such great benefits? And also what do you mean by marijuana can be turned into a liquid and be used for the skin? |
45 | 8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The penny should be stopped from circulation Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov... |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00000-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned I would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. . |
16 | 7d81b966-2019-04-18T14:40:50Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | An individual should be a drug addict. You are already confused lol. You really should have read the top. We both have the responsiblity to prove our part, you should have argued why its bad to be one, but you haven't, you Must present arguements to convince me I shouldn't be an addict or else you have failed your burden.Argument 1: The Desire To Do Drugs A specific reason that one individual should be a drug addict is that they enjoy being high. For them, being high outweighs any other concerns and is the primary concern in life. Because I am acting as a drug addict in this debate, and must be convinced not to be, I will tell everyone that right now I am very unconvinced. And in fact I will never be convinced, drugs are more important than any thing, money, glory, power, other people, love, its all worth nothing compared to the desire for the heroin needle in my veil. That's just the needly, the actual high is much more impartant than any of those things. Thus an individual, a drug addict, should be a drug addict because they want to be. Thanks |
46 | 5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00007-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality This debate is about Net Neutrality. RULES: No Profanity Sources are not required but are recommended. 1st round is for acceptance ONLY 2nd and 3rd rounds are for arguments ONLY Last round is for thanking eachother for the debate ONLY To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) |
12 | 3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth Control To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening. |
27 | 934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com... |
37 | 9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00001-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Should we be worried about cell phone raiation I think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think. |
48 | c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument. |
49 | b99bced-2019-04-18T18:57:48Z-00003-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Warning !.... I believe that photo-radar cameras used to take pictures of drivers as a way of lay enforcement should be illegal. As a citizen of Arizona, our state recently tried to use these cameras set up in various areas to try to catch speeders. For about two years we had these cameras up and as of this last year they were taken down. I will explain why. They are ineffective! What happens when they set up these cameras is that people know where they are. They may be speeding, but if they know a camera is coming up they will slow down just for the camera and then speed back up. Sure, it may catch people every now and then, but then what? What happens once they take your picture of you speeding and your drivers license? Well, they send you a letter. That's it. Many people I know have disregarded these letters and gotten away just okay. But say on the slim chance an officer of the law delivers this letter to you, how does he prove it was you driving the vehicle? He can't! I let friends or family borrow my car all the time. It would be absurd to punish someone if they were not the one driving. I propose that these cameras be illegal because of their ineffectiveness. |
22 | 3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution. |
13 | 688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | We should stop using fossil fuels!!! i dont but you do!!!11 stop ruining the environment we need it for air and stuff how can sumeone live in this world will ruining it???/ so cruel |
27 | fffab27a-2019-04-18T13:50:33Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | American Gun Control Gun control can be defined in many different ways. Background checks, banning automatic or semi-automatic guns, or the banning of guns altogether all fit under the range. I decided to argue to banning fire arms to make the topic more specific, and that is a perfectly valid argument. Anyway, thank you very much for accepting the debate. As Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's vice-president once eloquently said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, his argument certainly has a good point. Police carry weapons, but when they are minutes away at a station or across town, the criminals come out of nowhere fast. In a gun-free zone, or a world without easily accessible firearms due to heavy restrictions, the few minutes it takes for the police to reach the destination, lives could be lost. Russia has some of the tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to gun control. People only own nine guns per 100 people in Russia, while America has close to 100 guns per 100 people. Yet, in 2009, Russia had 21,603 murders and America had 13,636 (see link). Especially considering that America is approximately three times more populous than Russia, it is safe to say that guns to not have as much correlation to violence as some previously thought. Tightening gun control laws in America would most likely have a similar effect, and we could unfortunately see a spike in the murder rates. This is why gun control laws should stay just the way they are, or if anything, even be loosened. http://www.npr.org... |
36 | 3bad8f8-2019-04-18T14:19:46Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Is Dance A Sport Odette has the the scene and pirouettes across the stage, she's at the violins, she's at the flutes, she's at the basses, ooooh, she's taken down by the evil knight Rothbart at the oboes. Wait a minute, there's a flag on the stage. The conductor is calling a foul. Apparently Odette was tackled in mid pirouette. The conductor has announced that the tackle curse does not turn Odette into a swan, and the dance is move forward five stanzas into the woodwinds. Rothbart is in the conductor's face. This could get ugly. Well folks, who knows where this is going? It's anybody's ballet now. |
9 | eb9a4d4d-2019-04-18T18:18:05Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students Should Not Wear Uniforms At Memphis City And Shelby County Schools kids should be allowed to express themselves in school. If they are not allowed some amount of self expression now it will come out later, usually much more forcefully than had they been allowed some freedom as children. Not everyone person needs to be shoved into the same box. We do not all fit just one mold. We should learn to celebrate the differnces in each other. This is the lesson that should be taught to our children. Not that everyone should be the same. I want my children to be who they are, Not cookie cutters. wearing uniform is NOT important wearing uniform is not important because almost all the kids dont like uniform because they could get bullyed for wearing them and by NOT wearing them they could express them self They are a waste. What are uniforms for exactly? To keep us safe? Clothing doesn't make you safe. It doesn't change anything from crimes ot theft at school. Uniforms are bland and are just useless! They cost money and for what? Students don't change their behaviour because of what they wear. Well, uniforms has its ups and down but really? Uniforms? What's the use! i think that we deserve some indivuiality in school. They are saying that if we wear clothes it changes who we are. The schools thinks that if we have uniforms then we will be better in schooling. Really, as soon as school lets out we will be right back in our designer or play clothes. Teachers and school boards should really worry about education. Are parents are in charge of us, not the school. Who agrees with me, let your voice be heard! No! Students should be allowed to express themselves with parental vision. Parents need to be more active in the child's schooling. And should not allow their child to wear offensive clothing. It's not the public schools fault the type of clothing that their students are allowed to wear. Having uniforms will not make everyone equal. It will not stop bullies and gang violence. Uniforms will gives false security. For example, a child with an lower society meets a child with an higher society. The child in the lower society will still feel the same with or without uniforms. And the uniforms may even complicate the child's (lower society) feelings for the child in the higher society. Besides, there are still other ways to ostracize a student by their clothing. Also, in the real world we don't wear uniforms. And that goes for most professions. Then there's also a conflict of who will pay for the students uniforms will it be the school or the parents. Students should NOT wear school uniforms Students have a right to be an individual. Our gov officials do not have a right to tell our students what to wear. NO! Students should express themselfs and in the Buisness world uniforms arnt really required! no they are not there style students should have there own style and not wear uniforms that are so not them they should express there feelings as someone choosing what they should be cause no one should choose for them cause its someone not them and is not fair no uniforms they feel uncomfotable uniforms should only be used in work or something like that they are uncomfortable and some r expensive so no school uniforms Uniforms are rarely need in the Business world Uniforms are anachronistic compared to the daily live of an average worker. Very few jobs require uniforms. Most jobs that do are low paying service work. We don't want to have kids aim for that. Why should we wear uniform if our main role models-teachers-don't? Realistic preparation I do not think students should wear uniforms, cause it gives them a false sense of even opportunities. While that may be the case in school, it would not motivate poorer students to try harder since they won't have the same financial backing with their rich counterparts. no i think students should not be forced to wear uniforms. i feel that students wants to express thereself and show off thier own creativity.i also think that students will not feel comfortable in something they don't want to wear because they may think its uguly,or baggy or something like that. I am against school uniforms, because the stifle creativity and self expression. I am against school uniforms. I believe children need to be able to express themselves as much as possible as they are trying to figure out who they want to be in this world. Clothing is a big part of self-image and identity and should not be stifled. I think it is a better idea to just ban overly revealing clothing and blatant gang colors and aside from that, let the kids be who they are. I oppose the school uniform because we are not Nazi Germany; we should not force students to dress the same. We were born as individuals and should go to school and wear different clothing that represents us as individuals. If everyone wears the same thing, where is the freedom? It will be like a prison where everyone wears orange all the time and cannot question the authority. I will fight school boards who try to do this to children. We are a free country and this should not happen in the United States of America. Each of us is unique and different and that should not be forced to change. Schools should not require uniforms as they are an unnecessary component of education. Schools should not require mandatory uniforms for students because the serve no useful purpose within the educational process. The freedom to express oneself is part of the growing and learning process as much as academic lessons, and students need this freedom to discover who they truly are as people. Uniform dress in schools give the message that diversity is a bad thing and to conform is to prosper. While school uniforms may be a good idea in some schools it should be required in all schools. Each school should have its own right to determine whether school uniforms are appropriate or not for the school. While there have been some excellent examples of school behavior being enhanced by school uniforms particularly in urban disadvantaged neighborhoods this needs to be a choice of the school. Studies have shown that academics sometimes improve with uniforms and that a competitive element is reduced. Yet to make this a requirement for all schools to do does not take into account different neighborhoods and different school characteristics. For example a high school that may foster the arts would be totally out of line requiring uniforms and could be a damper on the creativity that they are encouraging. In some cases uniforms may also place an economic burden on a family. To conclude each school district needs to determine what is best for the district and the individual schools and uniforms should be a voluntary thing. I don't think schools should require students to wear a uniform. I do not think that schools should require their students to wear a school uniform. I do not think it is fair for students to be forced to do something. Students have the right to stand out, if all are wearing the same outfit they can not stand out. Also some families can not afford to by the uniform. I do not think that uniforms should be a requirement but is should be an option. If a parent finds it more economical to purchase uniforms in a public school setting then they should have that option. Uniforms are great because students don't feel a sense of competition between other students. If would not matter how much money your. I don't feel there's a need to force a uniform on anyone. I do believe that individuality in dress is important, it breeds creativity. As a child the only thing you really have control of. Is your style , it would be a shame to loose that in a uniform. Schools should not require students to we |
33 | 2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters' minds is, "What do you eat?" The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and "Fib Ribs" to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more. Going vegetarian has never been easier, and we're here to help! From our fantastic recipes and list of favorite products and favorite vegetarian cookbooks to our free vegetarian starter kit and online shopping guide, PETA has all the information you need to adopt a healthy and humane vegetarian diet! Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Eating animals is bad for our health, leading directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. In response to animal welfare, health, and ecological concerns, compassionate people everywhere are adopting a vegetarian diet. For Animals Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. All farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air. Animals raised for food are bred and drugged to grow as large as possible as quickly as possible—many are so heavy that they become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of their water supply. Animals on factory farms do not see the sun or get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water. Many die during transport, and others are too sick or weak to walk off the truck after they reach the slaughterhouse. The animals who survive this hellish ordeal are hung upside-down and their throats are slit, often while they're completely conscious. Many are still alive while they are skinned, hacked into pieces, or scalded in the defeathering tanks. Learn more about the factory-farming industry. By switching to a vegetarian diet, you can save more than 100 animals a year from this misery. One suggestion: If you plan to make the transition to a vegetarian diet gradually, the most important foods to cut out of your diet first are bird flesh and eggs. While many people think that "red meat" and dairy products should be the first to go, this isn't the case. By cutting bird flesh from your diet, you'll save many more animals. Because chickens are so small, the average meat-eater is responsible for the deaths of many more chickens than cows. Plus, chickens and turkeys exploited by the meat and egg industries are the most abused animals commonly used for food. For Your Health Some of the leading killers in America today, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes, are directly linked to meat-based diets. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America today, and it is caused by the build-up of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products in our arteries. The only two doctors in human history who have successfully reversed heart disease have included an exclusively vegetarian diet as a part of their programs. The average vegan cholesterol level is 133 (compared to 210 for meat-eaters); there are no documented cases of heart attacks in individuals with cholesterol under 150. Other health problems tied to clogged arteries, like poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes, can be virtually eliminated with a vegan diet. Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. Learn more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. For the Environment America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country's meat addiction is wrecking the earth. Read more about factory farming and the environment. http://goveg.com... |
50 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00000-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | unknown আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যা�াউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তি72;&9l495; আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে &# |
13 | b2fea2fb-2019-04-18T12:22:27Z-00005-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...) The resolution states, "The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over continuing support for traditional energy sources." There are doubtlessly infinite ways to uphold this resolution, but many are tragically indefensible. For instance, the USFG could pass law requiring that all oil rigs are disassembled with the parts scraped for use in windmill infrastructure. A debate reduced to arguing about such absurd scenarios would lack true substance and ultimately teach us nothing. Thus, I will propose a single scenario which I believe well supports the resolution.Scenario: 1) The USFG shall institute a flat $40/ton carbon tax 2) The income generated by this tax will be put into a renewable grant fund 3) The national science foundation (NSF) will oversee the renewable grant fund, they will award grants to applicants (industry & academia) based on proposal calls. That is, to be awarded a grant, applicants must submit a detailed proposal which indicates that their work holds a high likelihood of contributing to the USFG renewable energy portfolio. Specific implementation details will be left up to the NSF. The NSF is well versed in this area, as they handle ~40,000 proposals each year and award ~11,000 of them from a $7.7 billion-dollar budget [1]. I will argue the utility of this plan based on three primary contentions: The risks associated with climate change are immense. In 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their 5th global assessment report [2]. Within the report, compiled by climate experts around the world, they examine various projections which account for how well humanity can address climate change in the coming years. The projections are alarming. In the most conservative scenarios, where humanity takes significant action to curtail carbon emissions, various species and ecosystems face extinction. Less conservative scenarios suggest disproportionate impacts on arctic sea ice and coral reef ecosystems, both of which show intolerance to continued ocean acidification. That is, without drastic action to curb climate change, multiple biodiversity hotbeds face an existential threat. The direct projected impacts on humanity are not better and tend to disproportionately affect impoverished populations. In conservative projections, the risk of heat waves, coastal flooding, and typhoons is already rated as "high". The moderate projections, accounting for moderate increases in surface temperature ~1-2 °C, anticipate the advent of extreme heat events which threaten crop production, water availability and terrestrial biodiversity. These projections, as well as the more extreme projections, predict aggregate economic damages from sustained public health crisis, food loss, and biodiversity loss. Although these projections are disturbing, the most chilling aspect of the IPCC report is the possibility of "large-scale singular events". That is, some systems may be at risk for sudden and potentially irreversible transitions. A distinct possibility is that, as permafrost continues to melt, carbon and methane trapped underneath the topsoil will be released into the atmosphere. Sufficient release of these greenhouse gasses may cause a runaway feedback cycle in which permafrost melts increasingly fast as gas is increasingly released. A scenario such as this may cause drastic fluctuations in surface temperature well beyond what experts have modeled. A second possibility is that key biodiversity losses may kill off integral species (keystone) and cause a cascading extinction event up the food chain. By their very nature, the risks posed via "large-scale singular events" are difficult to predict; however, the risks foreseeably range from worrisome upwards to large scale global extinction events. Similar projection reports have been authored by numerous think tanks (notably the international energy agency), numerous world governments, the environmental protection agency (EPA), NASA, the UN, and even the pentagon (to name a few). Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has dedicated substantial time to documenting the current impacts of climate change. For the sake of space, I will list only one of these impacts. Ambient outdoor air pollution, largely attributable to continued burning of fossil fuels, kills 3 million people worldwide, annually [3]. The prioritization of clean energy over traditional energy sources can directly save millions of lives worldwide, in the short them. But continued prioritization holds the potential capacity to save billions of lives. Prioritization of the renewable sector creates net job growth. Critics of renewable prioritization like to float the idea that the job-loss associated with traditional energy sources will be catastrophic for the American economy. To evaluate the veracity of this claim we can examine the 2017 Department of Energy report on "Energy and Employment". I will simply quote a key finding from the report: "Proportionally, solar employment accounts for the largest share of workers in the Electric Power Generation sector. This is largely due to the construction related to the significant buildout of new solar generation capacity. Solar technologies, both photovoltaic and concentrating, employ almost 374,000 workers, or 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation workforce. This is followed by fossil fuel generation employment, which accounts for 22 percent of total Electric Power Generation employment and supports 187,117 workers across coal, oil, and natural gas generation technologies." This finding reveals that renewable sources (in fact solar alone) outcompete traditional energy sources in terms of jobs created. However, to fairly evaluate this discrepancy, we must also examine how much of our power consumption is derived from each source. This is also found in the 2017 DOE report [4]: The figure is striking in that it depicts how very little of our current power is derived from solar energy. Despite this, the solar sector alone dominates fossil fuels in terms of jobs provided to the American citizen. The data indicates that investment in renewable resources creates jobs much more effectively than investment in traditional resources. This conclusion has been well supported by others. The Environmental Defense Fund's Climate Corps report has recently estimated that solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy [5]. The World Bank summarizes the point succinctly: an investment of $1 million in Oil & Natural gas will yield 5.2 jobs on average; an investment of $1 million in Solar will yield 13.7 jobs on average [6]. A world with free energy changes everything. There are limits in what humanity can do which we could define as "costs". Economically speaking, people tend to break down costs into: labor, energy, time, and resources. The beauty of developing sufficiently efficient renewable energies is that the energy cost approaches zero for any given task. With abundant energy, and societies sufficiently advanced in robotics, labor and resource costs will plummet as a result. The question then becomes, what existent scarcities would be alleviated by the advent of free energy? The answers are endless. A simple impact to abundant energy is the alleviation of harmful energy production methods used in impoverished countries. The National Geographic notes that 3.5 million people die each year from respiratory illness due to indoor wood and biomass cook stoves [7]. The article also notes that Nigeria, Africa's largest oil producer, has 82.4 million people living without electricity. M.I.T. notes that nearly 300 million people in India live without electricity [8]. These are people who face significant difficulty in meeting their basic needs: sanitizing food/water, staying warm at night, storing food. These are people whose needless deaths and low life expectancies could be alleviated by a world with free energy. Abundant energy would also preclude resource wars. A key aspect of renewable energies is that they are not localized (read: oil) – wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric generation can occur in all regions of the world. The life loss associated with continued resource wars perhaps numbers in the hundreds of millions as of this writing, but to understand the necessity we can look at a single resource: oil. As of this writing, the wiki article on "oil wars" documents 11 distinct wars and many more campaigns: http://tinyurl.com.... These wars alone directly killed hundreds of thousands of lives. Perhaps more substantial are the impacts on technological innovation and free time. A world with trivial energy costs minimizes transportation, computation, and robotics costs. It also lowers the cost of basic consumption-goods required for essential needs (e.g. food, water, shelter, clothing, heating, sanitation and even healthcare). This leaves more people and machines with more free time and with more resources to combat global challenges. The impacts are boundless but include: disease cures, new antibiotics, securing off-world colonies, lifespan longevity breakthroughs, and general advances in science that contribute to the quality of life for humanity. I'm not so naïve as to think that the proposed plan alone is going to produce free energy. Free energy isn't a question of "if", it is a question of "how soon". The plan will significantly expedite renewable development (multi-billion dollar investment) and in doing so achieve free energy on a quicker time table. This is important because every year without free energy is a year in which hundreds of millions of people needlessly face low quality of life and death. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... |
1 | 24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Though on the surface tenure is problematic, I have to object to the resolution's requirement of the USFG banning it from ALL high schools. After all, not all high schools are public high schools.The government, federal or otherwise, does not have the right to invade contracts between private schools and teachers merely because it disagrees with the prudence of those contracts. Incidentally, though this is not central to my argument, the US FEDERAL Government has a specific meaning. We have a federal system, in which constitutionally all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or "the people" . I find it doubtful that my conservative American opponent will really feel comfortable so blatantly violating the constitution (since Education is not among those powers granted the federal government, which is why at present the Department of Education is limited largely to "collaborating with the states," helping them out, granting them, rather than bans) for the purpose of education reform, and also doubtful that an amendment on the matter is likely to happen, and that there aren't better things to do with the effort that such an amendment would take. |
29 | d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Thanks, Pro. == PRO CASE == R1) Causes 1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand. 2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers. https://www.hamiltonproject.org... 3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument. R2) Work 1. The part where Pro actually connects "immigration is beneficial" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants "need" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient. 2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously. == CON CASE == C1) Incoherent Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like "The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be "illegal" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty. C2) Cost 1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run. 2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered "illegal immigrants" because there was no state to "immigrate" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails. 3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being "laughable". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is "laughable". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse. C3) Unjust Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical. == CONCLUSION == I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again. Resolution negated. |
37 | b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00001-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. "I derived this information from a reliable website." Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is ".org" or ".gov"! Anyone can just get a ".com", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: "A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it"s not clear if they"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown." https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a ".org" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma " a specific type of brain tumor " for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall." https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a ".org" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive. |
44 | 40a07afc-2019-04-18T16:18:07Z-00003-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | The Modal Ontological Argument for God is Logically Sound I thank Con for his responses. So my opponent says that he has debunked the whole argument. Perhaps it would be, if I had decided to forfeit and not offer up a refutation of his arguments. But I have no intention of doing something like that. In this argument, I propose to show that he hasn't debunked the argument just yet. Now, I remember saying that the BoP was shared, and that I would state my premises and defend them later, but I will comply with his request, refuting his rebuttals along the way to preserve precious character space for my argument. Defense of Premise 1 I will call upon the first proposition of Modal logic, which emphasizes the logical possibility of things; not the physical possibility. If the vegan he's talking about possibly exists logically in some possible world, then such a person would exist logically in this world as well, but not physically. So with these revisions, my opponent would at least be conceding and saying that there could be such a person that exists in our world; and logically following from that, that a maximally great being is logically possible. This is where my opponent's analogy breaks down; the idea of a person like that as outlined in his rebuttal does not entail his existence, but in my argument, the idea of God does. I ask my opponent to please explain further. Defense of Premise 2 I'll start with refuting the reverse MOA. I'll be calling upon proposition three of Modal logic, which tells about necessary propositions. This defense flows logically from the defense of the first premise. I already mentioned it was about the logical possibility of a God existing. Now, my opponent states that his argument is based upon the logical possibility of a god not existing. Exactly how is that a valid point or a rebuttal to my premise? The idea was to point point anything logically inconsistent or absurd in the premise or in the truth behind it, and it appears that he has failed to do just that. This would also be a contingent proposition, since naturally, my premise also stated that it was possible that a greatest possible being didn't exist. Now, to put it into simpler terms, I'll turn his argument into a syllogism: (If this is a strawman, please let me know.) P1: Pro accepts that it's possible God doesn't exist in a possible world with his line of reasoning. P2: By this line of reasoning, it is possible God doesn't exist and possible he does exist. C: Therefore, the premise is invalidated because you can't choose both in the MOA. So basically, P1 and P2 are irrelevant because the rebuttal has done nothing to point out anything logically absurd or inconsistent with the premise. My opponent's argument also states that it's still possible that a greatest possible being exists; therefore it stands. This argument would also break down in that it's essentially making a metaphysical and logical contradiction in itself. The main problem with this argument lies in P2 and P3; how would God, assuming that he is a maximally great being, not exist in a possible world? At least as long as his existence would be in the question. The reverse MOA is not exactly well-explained by my opponent; and as I stated before, BoP is shared. I invite him to please explain further if he wishes. But what really invalidates the rebuttal is that he used the reverse MOA solely as a point of contention against the premise instead of trying to point out anything logically absurd or inconsistent. That is what the first two premises are built on; the idea of a greatest possible existing in some possible worlds brings no logical absurdities with it. Therefore, the first two premises stand. I humbly invite my opponent to help me understand the points of these rebuttals, as the first two premises in the MOA only deal with what is logically possible in possible worlds, and not with what physically exists or is physically possible. Defense of Premise 3 Now to defend my third premise… All that I am really saying in this premise is that going by the previous premises, if you can imagine a God existing in some possible world, then it's at least logically possible he exists. Note how I place emphasis on the logical possibility of things, not whether or not it's physically possible. An invisible unicorn or the Balrog are logically possible, (As far as I can tell, at least.) but a four sided triangle or a circular square would not be; or in other words, the idea of them existing brings about no logical absurdities. That is all I am saying here. However, my opponent hasn't done anything to attack this premise yet. (I'm sure he will, though.) So until then, it stands. Defense of Premise 4 Now here, I will offer a refutation of Con's "Other Problems" argument. My opponent claims at the end of this section of the argument that "It is possible God exists" must be false. Now, I must ask, in this argument, what kinds of beings are my opponent talking about? To better illustrate my argument, I'll use this: C1: Beings that are logically possible and physically exist C2:Beings that are logically possible but do not physically exist C3:Beings that are logically possible and metaphysically exist C4:Beings that are logically possible and do not metaphysically exist. And then we have the next four which are logically impossible beings but share all the same secondary traits as the beings above, but we shall ignore that for now. As I said before, Modal logic deals with what is possible. I now ask my opponent to clarify which kind of being he's talking about in his argument here. As I'm sure we all obviously know, there's no lumping them all together in one category, as my opponent's argument seems to do. (Other than that they're all logically possible.) They are most sharply divided by whether or not they're physical or metaphysical. And we also must remember we are talking about a maximally great being that would, by definition, exist somewhat separately from its creation. Defense of Premises 5 and 6 What I am saying her is that if a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds; assuming that he's maximally great, would exist in our world or reality as well. What more is there to say about it after defending the last 4 premises? The argument flows logically, therefore God exists and that provides the strongest premise for the MOA possible. Rebuttal to Modal argument from evil. Remember, we're talking about a maximally great being such as stated in the Aquinas quote Con has provided. If a greatest possible being existed, there would be no gratuitous suffering. I imagine Con will call upon the possibility of God not existing in order to support his argument, but I believe I have already rebutted that argument. Therefore, it appears the MAE has been refuted. My refutations of Con's arguments will stand until he posts his argument. Either that or I have completely misunderstood his arguments. Conclusion My opponent's arguments do not appear to hold much water. I have provided evidence that the MOA is sound and the premises hold true. My opponent has yet to show otherwise. |
50 | 530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | That UBI should be implemented in the western world UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income. |
23 | 2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00002-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia Should Be Legal. "Stemming from my argument from Round 1, it's evident that I am arguing in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent, and not euthanasia by involuntary consent (at least not in this specific debate). My apologies if this was unclear from just reading the resolution." - Yes I do acknowledge you are in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent. I am not sure what I have posted that suggests I am confused. 3. My argument is that the patient who is ill and seeking euthanasia may have been compromised by third parties. Meaning for whatever reason a third party convinces the patient accept voluntary euthanasia. The third party may be a family member in which case pushes the patient to request voluntary euthanasia in order to spare the third party from having to deal with the reality of someone they once loved so close to death and in pain. The third party imposes a selfish point of view on to the patient pushing the patient into requesting voluntary euthanasia. So essentially it is still voluntary since the patient is the one requesting euthanasia. Not to mention the issue of the "Will" of the patient, if any inheritance exists there may be even greater incentive for a third party to compromise the patient into requesting Euthanasia. You suggest: "With voluntary euthanasia, there could be legal documents or any other certified form of verification, perhaps like an audience of witnesses, of which before the patient will state that they are allowing their physician to perform the euthanasia procedure. The medical conditions of the patient should be reviewed by the hospital's panel of doctors, and a consensus on whether or not they should be allowed euthanasia can be reached. This will be to help prevent any corruption on the doctor's part, or someone else influencing from a third party." -These legal procedures do exist in oregon where voluntary euthanasia is legal. "Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy." (wikipedia.com) I do agree that these measure do in fact curb abuses of the system. However it is very plausible that a patient can perform all these legalities and still the decision is against his/her will. All these legal procedures are taken to ensure that the patient is seeking this request on their own accord, without a third party influence. The inclusion of witnesses unrelated to the patient in effect spreads the guilt. Meaning more people are involved, so a much more coordinated effort must be used to thwart the legal procedures, and if they get caught more people face legal punishment. In theory this will lower the likelihood of third party influence but it does not eliminate it. All these measures are bypassed with something as simple as a lie, and the patient will have submitted to the influence of a third party to kill him or herself. So even with all of these measures human flaws are not with out a doubt weeded out and deaths can occur against the will of the ill. This being true makes legalizing voluntary euthanasia a danger and unethical. 4."Let's assume doctors do get paid for voluntary euthanasia, and in this case got paid a LOT for it. If this were to be a viable problem in the future due to fears of corruption, then the solution will be simply to not pay them for euthanasia procedures." The USA operates on a Market System. Incentive is breed into every decision made by consumers and suppliers. If doctors were not paid for euthanasia there would be more incentive for them to falsely authorize euthanasia in which they were being paid for. So if a person discretely approached a doctor and offered a large enough sum of money to authorize the use of euthanasia on a patient, the doctor has much more incentive to perform a fraudulent euthanasia under your model of free euthanasia procedures. So making euthanasia procedures free in effect creates greater probabilities that fraudulent euthanasia procedures will occur, thus not remedying the situation of human greed and corruption. 5. In response to your statement about greed in all systems including business, lawyers, police, and people in positions of high influence. First of all i do agree greed exists all across the board. So since we have established greed will exist in the case of Euthanasia procedures lets move on. Now I do not think you can compare corruption of lawyers and cops to Euthanasia for a very simple reason. Transparency. You are absolutely correct that corrupt cops and lawyers do exist, I am sure there are countless documentaries and movies about this fact. But the corrupt behavior of cops, lawyers, and even businessmen are to some extent transparent. Cops have cameras in their cars that record sight and sound. Misconduct on the job can be recorded and used as evidence to uproot the corrupt behavior. If a cop makes extra money by trafficking drugs he will have trouble hiding the discrepancies between his income and level of standard of living. Lawyers keep detailed documents recording all procedures and motions they perform. They must keep them all on record for review by court. Any unjust or corrupt behavior will be recorded for find later. Even in Businesses, cooking the books becomes harder and harder since companies must release more and more information detailing their expenditures and sources of revenue. Discrepancies can be found through audit and the corruption up rooted. Euthanasia Procedures do not share the built in transparency measures that other systems have. Essentially once the ill person dies, so does the evidence of fraudulent behavior by a third party. Those pressuring the ill into voluntary euthanasia are off the hook once the beating heart of the patient stops. Since any system created to legalize voluntary euthanasia can not be rid or corrupt behavior legalizing euthanasia is a mistake. Since an indefinite barrier to transparency into that corrupt behavior also exists its seems dangerous to allow voluntary euthanasia to exist. |
26 | d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America Parliamentary debating is done in real-time and requires a team of debaters so I honestly do not see how on Earth we can stick to it. Nevertheless, I accept and am looking forward to this debate. |
22 | dede76-2019-04-19T12:45:54Z-00026-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Unrealiable therefore not the whole solution Wind patterns are beyond human control. Thus the farms cannot be relied upon to produce a constant supply of energy. There would therefore be the need for more energy sources as backup and these would probably be produced by more traditional means. |
10 | 61bcb9d1-2019-04-18T15:37:07Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Animal Testing (INTRODUCTION) Thanks for accepting! I don't want to waste too many characters, so let's go! (ARGUMENTS) ARGUMENT 1 Ever had a family member or a good friend affected by cancer? If you have, then you know the struggle and pain of ever having to try, attempt, push yourself to live and survive it. Some symptoms of cancer are: "-Fatigue -Pain -Skin changes: These signs and symptoms include: Darker looking skin (hyperpigmentation) Yellowish skin and eyes (jaundice) Reddened skin (erythema) Itching (pruritis) -Excessive hair growth - Change in bowel habits or bladder function -Sores that do not heal -White patches inside the mouth or white spots on the tongue -Unusual bleeding or discharge -Unexplained weight loss -Fever -Thickening or lump in the breast or other parts of the body -Indigestion or trouble swallowing -Recent change in a wart or mole or any new skin change -Nagging cough or hoarseness"{1} "it is estimated that around 8.2 million people died from cancer in 2012." {3} So, obviously cancer is bad. But what is a way that will slow it down? Cures. What has been an effective way to create cures? "Thanks in large part to animal-based research, there is a new molecular and genetic understanding of tumor biology, leading to treatments that set out to more directly kill cancer cells, which are molecularly different from normal cells. Use of this knowledge to design drugs that focus on those abnormalities is called rational drug design, and is seen by many as the currently emerging future reality of cancer treatment — of "kinder and gentler" cancer therapies that only target abnormal cells." {2} Ever heard of HIV? " -Soaking night sweats -Shaking chills or fever higher than 100 F (38 C) for several weeks -Cough -Shortness of breath -Chronic diarrhea -Persistent white spots or unusual lesions on your tongue or in your mouth -Headaches -Persistent, unexplained fatigue -Blurred and distorted vision -Weight loss -Skin rashes or bumps" {6} Obviously bad. But what has animal research done to help people with HIV/AIDS? "Research, including work with animal models, continues to develop new medicines with fewer side effects, as well as to create vaccine candidates that may one day make HIV infection preventable. " {2} I will name one more in depth disease and how animal testing helped. Then I will list (a quite long list of the diseases that have either helped or been fully cured because of animal testing. The last major one is birth defects. Did you know that "Every three and a half minutes, a baby is born with a birth defect in [just] the United States." {2} Animal testing has helped 2 major baby defects: "Folic Acid - Studies with animals determined that folic acid, a B vitamin, helps prevent serious birth defects of the brain and spinal cord when taken before conception and early in pregnancy. Since this discovery, a public education campaign launched in 1992 has prevented thousands of such birth defects. Surfactant Therapy - One in eight babies in the United States is born too soon. The lungs in many of these premature children are not fully developed. Surfactant is a detergent-like substance produced in the lungs that aids in breathing. Since surfactant therapy became widespread in the 1980s, infant deaths due to respiratory distress syndrome have dropped by over two-thirds. Research supported by the March of Dimes and others continues to seek new, more effective therapies" {2} Now a list of all the other major diseases/disabilities that animal testing has helped: "Heart Disease/Stroke...Diabetes...Parkinson's Disease...Hepatitis C...Bioterrorism Medical Countermeasures...Epilepsy...Spinal Cord Injuries...Cystic Fibrosis" {2} All of those are extreme and some of them are deathly, but with the help of animal testing we are finding ways to help those struggling with these diseases. ARGUMENT 2: I understand that animals have lives too, and that they also feel pain. I wish they would not have to feel the kind of pain they endure, but we are humans, not animals (We are referring to lab animals. So technically yes, but we are not lab animals.) . And I believe that the lives saved by this research on maybe a mouse or a rat is worth saving millions of human lives. Did you know that 1 million americans are dependant on insulin? But without animal testing, they would be insulin free… because they would be deceased. {4} I am now going to list what would happen if animal testing did not exist. "Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. Most of the nation's 1 million insulin-dependent diabetic individuals would not be insulin dependent – they would be dead. Sixty million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication for high blood pressure. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70 percent of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. More than 1 million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. The 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people killed by the disease. Millions of dogs, cats and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies, and more than 200 other diseases now preventable because of animal research." So millions and millions of people dying or a hundred animals dying per disease? And you know what is funny, animal testing can save animals from zoonotic diseases as well! So everyone benefits. And do you know how many diseases are zoonotic? "Many serious epidemic diseases are zoonoses which originated in animals. These include rabies, Ebola virus disease and influenza. In a systematic review of 1,415 pathogens known to infect humans, 61% were zoonotic"{5} Animal testing helps all of us. And again, I wish we did not have to do such tests, but I would rather a mouse die than a person. We are humans and the most valuable lives in nature to us are other humans. And just think of how much good for the world it can do! (CONCLUSION) Thank you for accepting this debate and I look forward to your arguments! DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cancer.org... {2} http://www.amprogress.org... {3} http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... {4}http://www.txbiomed.org... {5}http://en.wikipedia.org... {6} http://healthportal.srushtisystems.com... |
14 | 6334e6c5-2019-04-18T16:20:55Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Gay Marriage In this last round of debate, I am going to talk about two things. 1) I will show the modern effects of what I warned about in round 2. 2) I will refute my opponents evidence, as well as show how her evidence itself claims there is no 100% evidence that homosexuality is natural. To show the modern effects of what I was talking about in the previous round, I will need to cite from these two sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... link 2) "The sexual revolution (also known as a time of "sexual liberation") was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s. [1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). [2] Contraception and the pill, public nudity, the normalization of premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed" So when did this occur? The 1960s to the 1980s. Don't forget that, it will be very important. link 1) "From the late 1950s to early 1990s, several pedophile membership organizations advocated age of consent reform to lower or abolish age of consent laws,[121][122][123] and for the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder,[124] and the legalization of child pornography. [123] The efforts of pedophile advocacy groups did not gain any public support[121][123][125][126][127] and today those few groups that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites. [123][127][128][129]" 1950s-1990s. Around the exact same time. What did I say earlier? If you allow them to break one rule, then where is the limit? Now most of my characters will be taken up because of the second half of this argument, so I am going to cut this short because I outlined it a lot earlier. To sum it up, we have men who are marrying video game characters, pillows, and dogs. As stated, we have people claiming homosexuality is okay, and trying to make pedophilia a sexual orientation and not a crime. Where do we draw the line? When we don't set moral standards, people will keep pushing as I stated earlier. My opponent could of easily refuted my argument by citing an opposite claim showing how these trends were existent back hundreds of years ago, not recent. However, that has not happened. I have shown from a logical perspective, as well as with evidence, the consequences of allowing such things to progress. I will now address the evidence and claims proposed by my opponent. [(links 1-5)Slippery Slope] First of all, I don't know why you posted 5 links about the same definition, I know what you meant after link #1. In addition, I thought I outlined the logical progression to my argument, I guess I did not. My argument was that if we allow homosexual marriage to occur and be deemed as normal, other things will inevitable be deemed as normal due to people pushing the boundaries. Like I stated previously with my analogy of the children. [links 6-10)Choose to be Gay] I will go at these one at a time. Link #6) I"m going to just post some quotes from the articles and comment on them. "And although the scientific community hasn't yet settled on a precise explanation for sexual orientation, many biologists agree that the fraternal birth order effect is likely the cause of homosexuality in 15 to 30 percent of all gay men. " The quote says that they haven't specifically found a precise explanation, also it doesn't claim it's 100% guaranteed [15-30 percent of men] "Ambrosino doesn't accept this. In his essay, he states that "I could, in fact, change [my orientation] if I tried, if I wanted to. I chose this. " A man who is a homosexual, is denying what the article is saying. If he has no choice, then why would he lie about this? He is a homosexual, he has nothing to gain from doing this. Link #7) "Bailey said: "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play and we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight. " The keywords are "suggest" and "may" have evidence, not 100% proof, but "may". It is not a fact. "While the findings revealed genetics accounted for around 30% to 40% of a man's sexuality, the rest was based on social and environmental factors. " Notice the difference in numbers from the previous link. Also, it is not 100% guaranteed. "However, there were no genes discovered to determine sexuality that were obvious among all the participants. " Above is the key quote. It speaks for itself. They found no complete, exact chromosome that proves their hypothesis. Link #8) This link is in sections. Sections 1-3 contain no information on topic and just shows the PDF file. In addition, section 4 just has things such as homosexual conversion therapy and etc. Nothing to prove factually that homosexuality is natural. The PDF file) This is on Page #2 "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors" Just like every other article has claimed, there is no 100% guaranteed fact to prove it. Nothing. No concrete evidence saying homosexuality is natural. I read the rest of the pages. They just have information of psychological effects on kids of homosexuals, places to find more information on homosexual effects, what age should homosexuals come out, etc. Link 9) "Scientists from San Francisco to Stockholm are finding evidence of what gay people know in their hearts: that sexual orientation is innate. Recent research in Sweden has identified differences in brain structure that may determine whether a person is gay or straight. " The article does not say that they have evidence, they are looking for it. The also say keywords such as "may". Link 10) This is the one she posted mid-paragraph. It has no factual evidence. In addition, her last argument and arguments mid paragraph are what they argued in this link. The difference between cars, air-conditioning, and etc. is that they accomplish their designed task. Air-conditioners do not create pizza, that would be unnatural for an air-conditioner to do. The same thing is with humans and homosexuality. It is not natural for humans to be homosexual, and nothing in the evidence that was posted proves that. Also, I stated earlier my position on sodomy. Condoms themselves are unnatural and so is masturbation. In conclusion, I have used logical statements as well as evidence to show how allowing things such as homosexual marriage can cause other problems in society. For example, to reiterate, the pedophiles who tried to make pedophilia as a sexual orientation instead of it being a psychological disorder. Why would they think it was even possible to accomplish this task? Well, when you know that homosexual was becoming more and more excepted, as well as the sexual revolution, of course they'd think they could accomplish it. It correlates with the logical progression I mentioned in round 2. Moreover, I disproved my opponents perspective that homosexuality is natural and therefore it should be okay to be married. In addition, my opponent brought up the argument about animals which I mentioned earlier in previous rounds. Animals eat each other, is cannibalism okay then too? |
15 | 3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00003-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. "[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. "[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com... |
13 | 4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00004-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. The cost efficiency of nuclear energy and fossil fuels far outweigh that of renewable "clean" energy. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed(1). That is not including maitnence of the machines. Solar Energy is also very expensive at about $10,000 for one home to go solar and would take almost twenty years to pay itself off(2). Fossil fuels offer one of the least epensive methods of producing energy in the world. (1) http://www.windustry.org... (2) http://www.solarenergy.net... |
46 | 1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a "new technology or business model" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to "partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this "monopoly" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a "regulatory regime". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs "pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: "Among our nation"s 12 largest internet service providers," he told the audience, "domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016." I ask him to elaborate. "As I"ve seen it and heard it," he says, "Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that "even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business." " By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren"t sticking it to the man. We aren"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from "Banksy" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search "If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: "The European Union"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply." In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will "throttle" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to "throttle" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were "pilloried in the court of public opinion" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com... |
19 | c6b95312-2019-04-18T18:29:26Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone Full Resolved: 'Gay marriage' as a legal, state union is beneficial to all people in the country, economically and socioreligiously. Definition: Gay marriage is the legal, state union between two consenting parties of the same gender. I will be arguing based on three points: Gay marriage encourages stimulation of marriage and family related markets - Though gay people may have weddings, many, seeing the lack of legal recognition, are discouraged from holding weddings and because of laws surrounding marriage and adoption and family planning, may be discouraged from starting a family. If gay marriage were legal, thus encouraging more gay couples to have formal weddings, it would stimulate markets commonly utilized to hold these events (small markets perhaps, but markets nonetheless). As well, despite arguments that giving these couples marriage tax benefits will decrease state and federal revenue, it will also decrease the use of Medicare, as gay couples, now encouraged to marry, are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. For example, following Massachusett's legalization of gay marriage, they say a decline in STD rates in the state, while other states not recognizing gay marriage saw an increase. Gay marriage legalization would be a landmark for social justice of all kinds - The legalization of gay marriage, despite protests from religious organizations, would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run. The concern is often that gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples, despite only isolated incidences which may hint at this. State recognized marriage has not forced churches to recognize unions in the past and would not now - churches are still allowed to not recognize couples which do not follow their belief system. Allowing gay marriage would only solidify that religious freedom and continue to forward America's progress towards complete freedom. Marriage is a fundamental right - Gay couples consist of consenting adults wishing to enter a legal union. Loving v. Virginia set the precedent that marriage is a basic human right - denying this right to consenting adults because of their gender is gender discrimination of the same kind that prevented women from voting in prior to the early 1900's. Invalidating gay marriage also invalidates interracial marriage, and other marriages often looked on with dissent. Legalization of gay marriage would further validate these unions. I look forward to my opponents response. |
22 | f76f5464-2019-04-18T16:54:24Z-00004-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Adoption is not the solution to abortion I am new to this site. This is going to be my first debate. Note:This is not a pro-life or anti-abortion vs pro-choice argument. Being Pro, I shall argue for the resolution. I shall defend the position that adoption is not the solution to abortion. Con will argue against the resolution. Con must present reasons for why adoption is the solution to abortion. Definitions: Ordinary dictionary definitions are used for this debate, with context determining the appropriate choice from multiple definitions. Adoption-To take into one's family through legal mean and raise as one's own child. Abortion-The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. Solution-an action or process of solving a problem Acceptance This round is for acceptance, clarification of the resolution, and definitions. If Con does not agree with my basic interpretation of the resolution, he is to negotiate changes in the comments before accepting. Arguments begin in Round 2. |
45 | 87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Should the U.S. keep the penny This argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things. |
40 | abe4e80b-2019-04-18T11:13:42Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty First of all, I agree that we must take actions against criminals so that such events do not continue and are not encouraged but I do not believe the death penalty is required in order to achieve such an outcome. Life sentences, I'd argue, Are good ways to punish people who commit such terrible crimes. They remove these people from society, They are more economically efficient and having such a system would allow the reversal of any mistakes made where innocent people are convicted. First of all I'm not entirely sure that murderers are given paroles. Paroles are only given to prisoners who are able to be rehabilitated back into society rather than simply being punished and only punished due to the crime they committed being as vile and as bad as murder. Paroles have to be earned, Prisoners are not entitled to them. Also when prisoners do go out on parole they have to follow strict rules and are sent back to prison if they break them. You mention how if a murderer is given a lifetimes worth of a parole then they will murder again. I don't deny that there are people who find loopholes in the parole system and abuse it to commit another crime, But for one criminals who commit crimes such as murder are very rarely are allowed parole and secondly to what extent this system is abused I do not know so if you have a source on this I would appreciate it. I made the point about deterrence as I often see people who are in favour of the death penalty say that it deters people from crime which I do not believe it does. Like I said in my previous comments, If someone is as messed up in the head that they would commit a crime like murder or something equally as bad then chances are the prospect of death will not phase them. I do not believe the "fear" of the death will stop these sorts of people like you claim for the reasons that I have mentioned. On your point though about the death penalty removing such people from society, A life sentence also achieves that outcome and it is more economically efficient on the tax payer and allows for the reversal of mistakes. On your point about costs. I'm sure there is wasteful spending which could be cut in the persecution of people who if punished would receive the death penalty but this is often minor spending and could also be made in the persecution of people who if punished would not receive the death penalty. I have done some research in why the death penalty is expensive which I have linked along with sources to other arguments that I have made down at the bottom and the extra costs that are made when persecuting those facing the death penalty is due to hearings being longer due to more evidence needing to be analysed so mistakes are minimised (and yet mistakes end up getting made anyway which would only be increased if this was cut), Judges having to be hired for longer and extra staff having to be hired by the state such as assistance attorney generals and staff and directors from other departments. These extra costs are all vital and if they were cut to levels the same as persecution of people not being faced the death penalty, Then even more mistakes would be made as they are now. I don't believe that people argue for the death penalty because they want to put a large cost on the tax payer but they often don't realise the extra costs that there are when persecuting people who are facing the death penalty and I don't believe the arguments that these people make are at all comparable to the arguments made by people who oppose legalising marijuana like you claim. I mention the costs of the death penalty as I believe it is a matter worth mentioning when talking about a policy that is not needed in order to have a successful justice system (as we see with European countries like the UK and Germany, A justice system can be successful without the death penalty) and is plagued with all the moral and pragmatic problems that the death penalty has. What changes would you suggest in how the death penalty is executed in order to not only solve all the problems with the death penalty that there are but make it better both morally and pragmatically better than punishing such even crimes with life sentences? You mention how the public are tired with the financial costs of the prison system yet, As mentioned before, The financial costs of the death penalty are far larger than keeping people in prison either to punish them or to rehabilitate them. The death penalty is far more harmful in terms of mistakes that are made and financially wasteful. "But these matters speak of the materials wasted, Of the few injustices made to the innocent. What of justice itself, By that which society or the wrong feel for those sentenced truthfully for wrongs, For horrors committed? " first of all I don't think the mistakes made under a system with the death penalty should be simply glossed over as a "few injustices" as these mistakes does destroy the lives of many and destroys the faith people have in the justice system. Also the death penalty is not needed in order to have justice, Killing people when one has been killed is not justice its revenge and I'd argue that life sentences punishes people just fine and creates justice for the innocent without the mistakes that destroy innocent people's lives and the unnecessary costs to the tax payer that the death penalty causes. Once again I thank you for debating on this issue with me, And it is really interesting and I thank you for providing such interesting arguments in a really good and respectful manner and I am glad that this is my first proper debate on this website. After you make your second round arguments the third round will commence and I will use that round to make my closing statements and final rebuttals and then you can do the same on your round 3 comments. I look forward to your next response. Glossary- Parole (Steps to Justice) "The Parole Process- An Early Release From Prison" (Lawyers. Com) "COST- Why the Death Penalty Costs So Much? (Death Penalty Information Centre) "Death-penalty wastes a lot of taxpayers' money" (The Columbus Dispatch) "Costs of the Death Penalty" (Death Penalty Information Centre) |
1 | 51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00004-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should Tenures Be Taken Away Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: "It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality."(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com... |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008. |
40 | be38f705-2019-04-18T18:45:30Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be abolished "Punishments don't have to mimic the crime to be fitting. Rape is a severe crime, yet we do not have a rape penalty. Should we have a fraud penalty where people who commit fraud are told they will be given a certain punishment, yet are given a worse punishment instead? We punish harsh crimes with a harsh yet different punishment, because there is a moral limit to how we punish criminals. If we shouldn't't punish people with rape or fraud, than should we also not punish them with death? "True that a punishment doesn't have to mimc the crime to be fitting, but really, what other crime fits a murder committed? If someone's life is taken away, what form of retribution would be fitting besides taking the murderer's life? By simply throwing someone in jail, that's the same punishment a rapist, thief, and mugger get. The only difference is the amount of time they're locked up for. Why should a murderer be punished in the same way someone who commits a less serious crime is punished? There are ways to make rectification for any other crime committed. If you steal something, the punishment could be to repay what is stolen. For a rape victim, in the case of pregnancy, the man responsible could be required to give child support (I don't know if this is really how they're punished, but it should be). There is no way to bring a murder victim back. There is no way to "make it up" to the victim's family. "We shouldn't maintain a penalty that potentially kills innocent people simply to make the victim's family feel better. Also life imprisonment is no cake walk. It is a very harsh punishment. There are other, non-lethal ways to find closure in this situation, like forgiveness. "I agree that the best thing for the victim's family is to forgive the aggressor. But forgiveness doesn't mean that the aggressor gets of scot free, and it doesn't mean that he shouldn't still be punished for his actions. "All right so we are both pointing to risks that are admittedly rare. My rare risk is the execution of someone innocent, your risk is that the murderer potentially escapes and kills someone. The thing is, the threat of someone innocent dying from my risk is more direct. An innocent execution will always result in an innocent death. If a murderer escapes he or she doesn't necessarily have to murder someone, plus in all likelihood they will soon get caught. As far as inmate murders go, solitary confinement can be an alternative to the death penalty. Also if the guard sees the murderer about to kill an inmate, I do support him using lethal force to stop the murderer. That would be an act of defense. "The problem is that police don't have foresight. Even for a murderer who hasn't escaped, the inmate may still be able to kill another inmate before a guard catches them. We have no way of knowing whether or not they will be able to succeed if we keep them incarcerated. "Abolishing the death penalty will guarantee no innocent executions. Even with those restrictions, human error will still work into the system. "I think if the evidence is overwhelming enough, such as in the case of Kermit Gosnell, the risk of human error is pretty negligible. This is why I would want it to become rare, and only in the cases where there's very little chance of being wrong. Maybe on top of the conditions I already listed, we could throw in a couple of reputable eye-witnesses. I'm not saying that many or even most murder victims should be given capital punishment. I want to avoid innocent deaths, too. But in cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that the risk of human error is negligible, it should be pursued. "Because they might not really be a murderer. If the punishment is reversible, then we can correct such mistakes. We should remember that old adage that 'The smartest man in the world is the guy who invented the eraser. ' Human judgement can be mistaken and to give it the power of life and death will result in fatal mistakes. "I understand this. But that's why we allow a jury to decide. That way it's not just one person making the decision. Sure, some innocent people have slipped through onto death row, but again, if we tighten restrictions on capital punishment, that will make it much less likely for an innocent person to be put to death. "War is a topic for another debate, but you don't have to be a pacifist to oppose non-defensive wars. This goes back to my point of how immediate self defense is the only justification for homicide, thus even executing the guilty is not the justified form of homicide. "Sure, war is a topic for another debate. But some of the arguments against it are comparable. Innocent people die in wars, too. And wars are not an immediate defensive action. Sometimes wars are preemptive, and sometimes wars are just a result of bad blood between two nations. Sometimes wars are to preserve a way of life. There are many different reasons for war. I don't like capital punishment any more than you do. However, I don't necessarily see it as immoral as someone who kills forfeits their own right to life. |
43 | dab1f67b-2019-04-18T18:43:23Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Alcohol advertisement should be banned due to insufficient information THank you for posting your case. My opponent states tries to counter my case by stating "I'd question strongly whether there is anyone of reasonable intelligence and age who lacks awareness of the substance"; however, at no point in my case did i state that people where unaware of this substance, i simply stated that alcohol entices the viewers. My opponent went further in stating that "it has no effect on the their awareness that alcohol exists." This statement is absolutely false. When looking at the world today, we find that technology such as television has completely taken over our children and adolescent life, now these children might have known about alcohol to some extent, but when presented with alcohol advertisement, we find that these same kids now know the names of ten different brands of alcohol and why each brand differ from one another. "Research suggests that children and adolescents tend to learn more about alcohol from television and beer advertising than from more balanced sources such as parents, leaving them more knowledgeable about brands of beer than about potential health risks associated with drinking. The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol, 2000." (http://www.media-awareness.ca...) In his first point, my opponent list several social events in which alcohol is present as well as giving us a formula in which ethanol is created, however interesting this may seem, it has noting to do with advertising alcohol and why we "should not" ban alcohol. "The pro case was never specific as to what these risks and what level of ignorance exists. " My opponent makes this statement in his second point. When alcohol advertisement does not present us the viewers with any facts as to what the risk of alcohol poses to yourself and the society. It fails to mention the chain of problems associated with drinking such as accidents, loss of judgement and unsafe sex. Above we find a fine example of an advertisement that rather than informing people, it encourages people to go out and drink. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Finally My opponent tackle in which he deems a "Fascinating theory with 0 evidence presented to support it." My opponent goes on in giving several evidence of his own in an effort to prove me wrong; however, as you probably noted, all his evidence are outdated. This is a new generation and with every new generation, comes a new habit/behavior. Evidence: "Researchers are examining other environmental influences as well, such as the impact of the media. Today alcohol is widely available and aggressively promoted through television, radio, billboards, and the Internet. Researchers are studying how young people react to these advertisements. In a study of 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders, those who found alcohol ads desirable were more likely to view drinking positively and to want to purchase products with alcohol logo" (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... ( January 2006) Here in the UK, psychologists at the University of Hertford have been investigating children's responses to TV alcohol advertising (Nash et al, 2009). They showed that children as young as 7 years old like alcohol advertisements on TV – especially ones with humour, cartoon format, animals and special characters. Secondly, recent study in Australia (Winter et al, 2008) found that children and under-age teenagers are currently exposed to "unacceptably high levels of alcohol advertising on television" (presumably because they are watching TV after the 9pm watershed). However, it should be emphasised, as noted in the introduction, that cartoon format, animals and special characters that could be appealing to those under the legal drinking age, are not permitted by EU, US or Australasian regulatory bodies for example. As Smith and Foxcroft conclude, "we now have stronger empirical evidence to inform the policy debate on the impact of alcohol advertising on young people." This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.... com/1471-2458/9/51 Youth who saw more alcohol advertisements on average drank more (each additional advertisement seen increased the number of drinks consumed by 1% [event rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.02]). Youth in markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures drank more (each additional dollar spent per capita raised the number of drinks consumed by 3% [event rate ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.05]). Examining only youth younger than the legal drinking age of 21 years, alcohol advertisement exposure and expenditures still related to drinking. Youth in markets with more alcohol advertisements showed increases in drinking levels into their late 20s, but drinking plateaued in the early 20s for youth in markets with fewer advertisements. Conclusion: Alcohol advertising contributes to increased drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:18-24 I belief this is enough evidence to prove my case to be a true one. CX: 1) i bvelieve i have provided enough evidence to prove this theory. 2)Drunk driving, loss of judgement e.t.c. The Youtube videos. 3) Evidence above. CX2: What are the benefits of alcohol advertisement. Do these advertisement affect kids view on alcohol (include evidence) Can you provide at least one alcohol commercial in which the risk associated with alcohol are presented. (by the alcohol producers not anti-alcoholic movements.) In conclusion, my opponent tries to counter all my arguments as to why alcohol advertisement should be banned; however, he failed to present a single reason as to why alcohol advertisement should not be banned thus failing to meent his burden of proof. |
27 | 9c362f41-2019-04-18T16:00:34Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control I will begin my argument by asking my opponent to define what kind of gun control we are debating as he began the debate and this makes a large difference on the outcome of the debate and the points argued. For the purposes of this debate, we will argue gun control in general. The argument I will present will show statistically why gun control can and has worked if implemented correctly. Opening Statement: To determine the constitutional burden of any such gun control law we must first establish what we are talking about when we use the term "gun control" as the supreme court has come down both ways largely depending on the restriction in question. There are many gun control laws that have been found to be constitutional, like keeping felons and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons. While there are also gun control laws that have been deemed unconstitutional, like laws requiring the weapon be disassembled at all times and the ammo kept in a different room than the weapon. Pro-gun advocates like my opponent, the NRA, and the RNC would have you believe that on the issue of gun violence in general, the person behind the gun is entitled to the entirety of the blame and the weapon used deserves none. In reality, they share the blame. Gun Control will result in less gun violence: My opponent does not specifically cite his first statistic about the number of gun-related deaths per year. But he does show that the United States has a problem with gun violence. He then makes his first point by assuming that someone whom cant obtain a firearm will simply use a knife or bat and not only continue out their originally planned crime, but kill as many people with a knife or bat while doing so. This is simply an irrational line of thinking and is not the case. Quoting the conclusion of a study done from 1981 to 2010 by the Boston University School of Public Health looking at the correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."[1] Again, I ask my opponent to cite his statistics. I would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions. My opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false. The British definition [of violent crime] includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes.[2] This explains the disparities shown in my opponents sources. A look at exact numbers shows that in the U.S. you are nearly 4 times more likely to be murdered than in the U.K. [3] The U.S. burglary rate is also 184.3 per 100,000 higher than the U.K.[3] As for the notion that guns are a deterrent to home invasions and that statistics will lay on the side of the homeowner, I cite this studies conclusion, "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."[4] The rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. "More than half of these guns " nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent " originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi".[5] So its not very simple at all. If you have a city with tough gun-control regulations but a state or surrounding states with lax gun-control regulations, it undermines the gun-control regulations put in place by that city because weapons can simply be procured in other city/states around it and brought in. Guns in Schools: The idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability? So now, with armed guards, we could have a situation where the person going on this rampage is highly trained, knows the layout of the school, the schedule of the employees, exactly where children will be at certain times, where the closest exit is, etc. The same applies to arming teachers. Furthermore, Columbine had an armed guard. Something I would like to point out is that I can see you have put no thought into the cost of these armed guards. How many per school? Lets say they make $50,000 per year. There are 67,000 elementary schools in the United States.[7] If we hired 6 guards per school, that's about 400,000 guards. That's 20 billion dollars a year just for elementary schools. That's not including junior-high or high schools. Then what stops the gunman from just shooting up the soccer game down the street? The point is, the solution to gun violence is not more guns. A point you don't address when you make knives seem just as deadly as firearms is the skill needed to successfully use a knife in a manor which inflicts as much permanent damage as a firearm in the same situation. Then what about your range of motion with a knife vs. a gun? For a knife attack to be of any success the target must be within arms length. This then greatly restricts the effectiveness of a knife as a mass murder weapon. A knife may kill many on a subway, but how will it fare on an open campus where students are much more spread out and a firearm would allow one assailant to kill many people with relative ease. There's an old saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Your "Gun control not really gun control" argument is not at all supported by the source you cited. Furthermore, we have democratically elected leaders to protect us from tyranny, armed combat where people lose there lives is never the first option. No one in the United States Legislature or myself is proposing enacting a police state and forcing all people to give up there weapons or receive the death penalty. That's just ridiculous and has no merit within this debate. Final Rebuttals and Closing Argument: We are not debating an all-out gun ban. We are debating gun-control. There is a large difference. Do you mean you will not abide by gun regulations or can you somehow speak for everyone who owns a gun? A gun buy back would be a start, but again, do you mean you won't sell your guns or do you have some ability to speak for the majority when you make these claims? Your last point makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "People won"t sell their drugs, even when that"s 100% illegal." Your now comparing two separate markets that are absolutely nothing alike. Guns are not addictive like most drugs are. Gun buyers don't continue to buy guns regardless of the price unlike drug addicts who will pay anything due to their immense addiction to them. If criminals don't follow laws, then why do we have laws? Why make murder illegal when criminals don't follow laws? Gun-control laws can and do work when implemented correctly. Sources: [1] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...; [2] http://www.politifact.com... [3] http://rayrayallday.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://www.citylab.com... [6] http://www.dailykos.com... |
19 | 5b95324b-2019-04-18T17:02:22Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal. My Opponent has Forfeited the Debate. |
35 | e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00002-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | violent video games Well why if they feel like some one is harming them or for example if some one says look kid i know ware u live then they would tell there mom and call cops |
20 | 6c858b14-2019-04-18T12:53:02Z-00002-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood Welcome everyone. I'd like to present a well informed opinion about this serious topic we have laid out on the table.I'm going to be supporting a syllogism in this debate that will help me uphold the resolution.P1) Child maltreatment causes violenceP2) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation is a form of child maltreatmentC) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation during childhood causes violence.Supporting P1I hereby provide a quote from a digest about a book or something:"The authors provide evidence that the apparent negative effects of maltreatment on children's propensity to engage in crime are real and not simply artifacts of other features of dysfunctional families. They find that being maltreated approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime and that the effects are worst for children from low socio-economic status backgrounds" [1].This is really all I need in order to prove that my premise 1 is true.I mean look at that. It's true.That evidence should feel proud of itself. http://i.imgur.com......; />Supporting P2Here is a heretic's review on Cadburry Creme Eggs in the form of a video [2]. He is a heretic because he is not absolutely in love with these little heaven-filled eggs. Even still, I have provided what he has to say about them. As you can see, Cadbury Creme Eggs are the best candy a child can have. I would also like to point out that child neglect is a form of child maltreatment [1]. Now, if a parent neglects to give their kid rich, beautiful chocolate filled with actual heaven, then they're committing child maltreatment.This is a year wide problem for some kids. Easter comes, and what happens? No creme eggs. It's clearly a widespread problem.Conclusion: I'm right.Now let's take a look at the whole word "largest" that I now have to support. We just need to realize how widespread this problem is. Almost everyone suffers from this. Since it's kind of a seasonal candy, a solid majority of America suffers from Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood because they only ate like ten per year. Can you imagine only breathing ten times a year? Yeah, didn't think so.What if parents forced their kids to only breath about ten times per year? Wouldn't that be child abuse? Yes, it sure would. So why are Cadbury Creme Eggs any different? They're not.I thank everyone for reading this, and I look forward to an exciting debate![3]Sources:[1] http://www.nber.org.........[2] The video http://www.youtube.com...[3] I'm the prophet of Morgan Freeman. |
37 | 6c1e3b72-2019-04-18T16:56:13Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phone use in school This was some challenging debate, and I had some serious competition. |
17 | f703aaba-2019-04-18T13:53:50Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use 1) - I understand that at 18 you can vote and drink and go to war and get married but I think that is ridiculous as well. Its only with an uphill battle at it is set at 18 today. Let take sexual consent. An age of consent statute first appeared in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. Check out Stephen Robertson, "Age of Consent Laws," in Children and Youth in History, Item #230, http://chnm.gmu.edu... (accessed January 24, 2016). in the 1800's the average legal age of adulthood was 10-16 in the US and most european countries and territories. In Hamar and Karo societies in Africa, a youth does not enter manhood until he performs the ceremony known as the "Jumping of the Bull" after which he can participate in hunts, defending his clan territory (going to war) and be allowed to marry. For most girls it is after their first period. Among the Twa, when a girl's first menses appear, the girl participates in a rite of passage known as Elima. Secluded in a house for at least a month with other girls who have also just started menstruating, the Twa girl is instructed by an adult woman about being a Twa woman. She is taught, among other things, the history of her people and how to be a good mother and a good wife. When the instruction is over, the girls come out dancing, and the whole community takes part in the Elima festivities. Having been properly instructed and trained, the girls are now eligible for marriage. The age of adulthood is connect to a cultures traditions and societies values of the time, which changes as the society changes and grows or declines, and political drives. I contend that "adulthood" is reached when an individual has shown consistent progress and responsibility in these areas - Financially independent from parents/guardian, is self-suffiencent in skills needed in everyday living and society, has thoughtful consideration to others and how their personal actions can effect others. There are the small percentage of those under 18 -25 that do possess these skills and abilities. But I would contend that they are the exception and not the rule as even most college students, age 18-25, can not properly wash dishes, cook, clean, or handle their bills, and most are still financially dependent on their parents for said college, food, car and cell phone payments, and clothes. Sometimes that is due to the parents wanting the CHILD to focus on schooling but its mostly cause the CHILD does not posses the skills necessary to be independent and therefor are not ADULTS. I could concede that there could be an exception to the 25min age limit extended to those 18 or older using the same procedure and law as an emancipated minor ? That would be a nice middle ground. 2) I say 2 medical doctors because as I stated how a body handles things is different for each individual. Even when a psychologist is prescribing a drug they look as physical tests performed on the body and medical history in order to evaluate doses, possible side effects, and possible drug interactions. The two doctors is because you should always get a second opinion because there are times when a test/exam is subjective and diagnosis can be skewed by the doctors on experience, bias, and the level of their medical knowledge and experience. One doctor can see cancer and tells you to remove your womb while another says you only need specific chemo. A licensed prescribing marijuana psychologist would look at these 2 evaluations and would tell you the risks and benefits leaving the choice to you whether to proceed. An individuals who CHOOSES to go over .5ounces, CHOOSES to do so over the advice of a medical doctor and thereby is liable for ALL consequences due to or under such dose. I chose .5 a month and the limiting of 4 HOUSEHOLD plants cause going online it seemed the most average and comfortable number to provide an average user with a daily relaxant which to me, recreational marijuana should be. If they CHOOSE to obtain more, they are free to do so and by using the card register/purchase system, when they do it will have a timetable of when sellers, doctors, and businesses are no longer liable for the smokers/consumers actions. They can still purchase, smoke, eat more at recreational businesses, which by setting the 4 plant limit boost local businesses as a provider for those that can't even grow a cactus, don't want to invest the time or money into growing their own, or wish to consume more then they themselves grew. I would concede to having a referral from 1 general doctor as long as they have been seeing them for the past year and they have an up to date physical, blood test to give to the prescribing psychologist for 1st time users and for repeat users who have moved or found a new health provider, been seeing their new general doctor for at least 3 months and must give their entire medical history to the prescribing psychologist. If they are recommended NOT to smoke marijuan to due a drug interaction, genetic disposition, or other medical/psycological reason, and STILL CHOOSE too, they take FULL LEGAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES and medical insurance is not obligated to cover cost for medical procedures, treatments, or actions related to the marijuana use. 3) I offer the real time streaming to government because they are the ones regulating it and they are the one's who will deal with crimes pertaining to the marijuana. The surveillance is limited to JUST growing areas for households and surveillance in commercial growers and recreational business is the same as if they were contracted to a private security firm which most businesses do anyway. I would acquiesce to a private security company or a local co-op of growers in a video surveillance system that they monitor AS LONG as the tapes are kept onsite minimum for 1 month and a copy is made and SENT at the end of the month to the local county marijuana office. If a grower/businesses DECIDES NOT to content to video surveillance I contend that they open themselves up to personal liability to any crime or violation on their property or in connection to their plants, drugs, products. 4) The area exclusion and high walls/ private rooms are more about the smoking aspect of marijuana, same as if tobacco smoke and also that even second hand marijuana smoke can physically and mentally affect other around them. The high walls on outdoor seating is a preventative measure from passerby's without a register card or underage from just reaching in and taking while no one is looking or while others are distracted. With glass walls it would be the same as if they were inside except there would just be no roof, and I don't think diners in window seats of restaurants feel humiliated. As for free choice, there are plenty of varieties with low THC that a customer can choose from. As THC has been proven as the addicting factor, particularly against those with the genetic predisposition for it, why risk exposure ? A higher THC is only needed if you want to get stoned or seriously buzzed, both which can inhibit your cognitive and physical abilities, putting yourself and those around you in greater danger so why risk others cause of your personal want ? Recreational marijuanas aim should be as a relaxant, not as a way to hide from your troubles as those wanting to be stoned or buzzed usually wish as those problems will not go away using that method and the cycle will just continue. I would concede to allowing higher THC strains ONLY if the consumer take FULL LEGAL PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES, criminally and civil, and medical insurance is not obligated to cover cost for medical procedures, treatments, or actions related to the higher THC marijuana use. If your going to go against medical advice, your choosing to take the full consequences upon yourself and other taxpayers should have to foot a medical bill you brought upon yourself with your choice. And in a free market there is room for health insurance specific the marijuana use with a higher premium for those going against medical advice and limits. |
5 | 36edccd6-2019-04-18T12:31:06Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security Social Security..... In my defence of the case I shall be talking about how social security should be changed as well, however I will be arguing why it should not be changed right at this moment. |
35 | d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00030-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. |
31 | f6df37b-2019-04-18T18:53:02Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Tobacco is more harmful than Marijuana Since I've already addressed the lethalness of the main chemicals in each Marijuana and Tobacco in my previous post, I will be using this round to address the harmful effects of the plants in question and their primary chemicals. I will address in two steps. Harms in the short term (during usage) and harms in the long term (this will include withdrawl issues). I will also point out that it is not my opinion that marijuana is worse than tobacco in every measure, and that if you focus on individuals points (such as the withdrawls), than tobacco is indeed more harmful. However, I encourage everyone to look at tobacco and marijuana in there entirety to see which "whole-package" is more harmful. Tobacco and Nicotine, both short term and long term. One thing that makes it difficult to find accurate articles on the effect of nicotine, is that it is so closely tied to smoking, and so the effects of smoking are often attributed to the tobacco and nicotine, even though they are not caused by them (see my reasoning for that in the second round). That said, I will try to give the effects of nicotine and how that effect is created in the body. Nicotine works in the body in a similar way as most drugs. It attaches itself to receptors in the brain and causes a release of dopamine (which makes you feel good). Since nicotine was actually commonly used long before we understood the makeup of the brain, the receptors that it attaches itself it have actually been named after it, the nicotinic acetylcholin receptors [1]. When nicotine binds with them, it causes them to send a signal to their partner to "release the dopamine" (in my best Mr. Burns voice). This dopamine has its own list of effects, depending the amount of dopamine released. They include, mostly, increased peeing (caused by increased blood flow to the kidneys and causes sodium levels to drop), increased heartrate, and at high enough levels, increased blood pressure from restricted blood vessels (this undoes the increased kidney functoin, as the contrasting blood vesels can pinch off blood supply to the kindeys) [7]. Nicotine also connects to the splanchnic nerves to release epinephrine and connects to ganglion receptors to release adrenaline. The adrenaline also causes increased heart rates and blood pressure. The adrenaline also causes the user to increase metabolism and decreases the desire to eat (since the body's purpose for adrenaline is to give sudden energy in a life or death situation, you wouldn't want to be reminded that you are hungry when trying not to become food yourself). The release of dopamine and adrenaline are likely what causes nicotine to have a lower LD50 than THC (since dopamine and adrenaline work agaisnt each other). Long term effects of high dopamine amounts in the body put extra strain on the kindeys and heart, and the extended adrenaline that would come from long term nicotine usage also puts extra strain on the heart. This is one of the effects from smoking which IS a fault of nicotine, as opposed to most of the lung issues which are from the various other chemicals in the smoke. When frequently used, the nicotine actually damages the receptors in the brain (as do all drugs) so that they will not release any of the chemicals (dopamine or adrenaline) without the nicotine acting as a middle agent. This causes the user to "crave" the nicotine so that it can get those levels of dopamine back up (causing an addiction). This also means that when a person is cut off from nicotine (like when someone tries to quit), they experience depression as the body does not release dopamine on its own at as high of a level as it should otherwise. This is actually seen with nerely all activities that raise the dopamine levels, such as all drugs, and even sex (see sex addictions). Moving on to Marijuana and THC, both short term effects and long term effects. THC, when it enters the body, binds with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain (we apparently names most of our brain after drugs, lol) in the centeral nervous system and in the immune system [2]. By doing so, they also cause the brain to release dopamine, and so causes some of the same issues with nicotine. The general feel good effects (relaxation and euphoria), as well as the same side effects (increased kidney blood flow at low levels, increased heart rate at high levels). However, THC does not cause a release of adrenaline, but it does cause the brain cells to release calcium ions (which the brain uses for electrical signals). These calcium ions cause a distortion in the brains ability to transfer data (thus causing at low, typical doses, short term memory loss, to alterations of space and time, to alteration of the senses, to at high levels, full blown hallucinations). And since THC and its metabolites are fat soluble, they stay in one's system for a much longer time, and when a large amount of fat is burned (like in exercising), a large amount can be released, causing secondary highs. Long term usage can lead to similar effects as long term nicotine, in that it can put extra strain on the kidneys (from the dopamine) and even stain on the heart (but not as much as nicotine, since the nicotine has the adrenaline effect adding to that). But the messing with the calcium ions in the brain can have long term effects to perminately damaging short term memory and perception (if large doses are taken for a long time). The addictive effects of marijuana are about the same as they are for nicotine. The only difference is how we measure "light usage" and "heavy usage." Since a "light smoker" would be someone that smokes 15 cigarettes a day (the average smoker in the USA smokes 28 cig a day). However, if someone was smoking 15 joints a day of marijuana, they would probably be one of the heaviest smokers in the world. And they would also experience harsher withdrawls than the individual smoking 15 cigarettes a day if both tried to quit cold turkey. Many of the links were not used for specific sentences, so I didn't reference them to any particular sentence, but here they are. Thank you, [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.nida.nih.gov... [4] http://learnmem.cshlp.org... [5] http://articles.sfgate.com... [6] http://www.drugs.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
10 | d2157663-2019-04-18T14:25:23Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIIIIIIIIM JONG UN IS MY BEEEEEEST FRIEND.In other words, this is a troll debate. Please DO NOT vote on this debate. |
34 | 868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Say NO to online social networks. Moving on; Now, it is my understanding that your two main points stemming from your opening argument are these: (1) Online Social Networks are waste of time for everyone except for advertisers -and- (2) Users can be exploited because of what information they post onto the site. To begin, I will answer your first argument, by highlighting three types of users that make accounts on social networks (SNW) 1: The casual user 2: The specialist 3: The hardcore user (1) Casual User: These are the ones that create accounts maybe because it's the cool thing to do, or just to keep up on the goings on in there life with friends/family/etc. They typically check there account every few days, answering messages/friend requests/wall posts, things of that nature. The benefits of the SNW for these users are small, but they justify actually having accounts. On most SNWs, one is able to create an event, and invite friends to it. This is one plus from social networking, the ability to plan things online, and talk to people that you may not normally talk to. Also, it can be used as a beefed-up email, if one misses an assignment, they can message a peer to get the notes. Moving on: (2) Specialist: These are the ones that make accounts, because of something they do. Myspace has gotten a lot of credibility for Myspace Music, a subsidy of the large site. A lot of current musicians have Myspace accounts that people can go to, to listen to music. Myspace Music has helped propel many artists. One such is Josephine Collective, a band out of Johnson County Kansas. They're one of the biggest things in Kansas right now, and have a very large cult following. Because of their Myspace page, a Warner Music representative offered them a contract, and they will have a major label release in the summer. Also, there have been specialized sites that musician's can sign onto, such as Purevolume, or Imeem. Because of the mass amount of SNWs out there that support music, a lot of indie bands have gained popularity, such as Vampire Weekend and the Black Keys. Specialized SWNs aren't just limited to music, though. While major ones such as Facebook allow groups to be made, so say, a runner can find running partners, there are smaller, more intimate sites, that allow everyone to know each other. There are sites for certain sports, or for people who like to write. Now onto number three. (3) Hardcore Users: These are the ones that basically live online. Now, whether or not people in the "real world" think this is right or not, the user still does it. It might seem like a bad habit, but in actuality, aside from the chance of becoming overweight, it really isn't. There are plenty of people in the world like this, the ones shunned by their peers, the ones that no one in "real life" likes. But, they thrive online, by talking to people just like them. Perhaps they just have an interest in something that no one in their town does. That's what's beautiful about the internet, is that you can find another person that shares the same interests as you. To tell people like this that SWNs waste their time, is just overzealous, because you're not the one living their life. Perhaps it's your goal to do things off the internet, but here are just three prime examples of people that, while they may be on SWNs a lot, don't waste their time. It's there choice, not yours. Now, onto my second argument: Although there have been instances where people have been scammed, or kidnapped, because of what they post online, this really isn't the majority. When you have millions of people signed onto these thing, having a few thousand get hurt isn't significant. Not to mention the fact that the sites clearly state about the threats of putting information out into the public. Also, there are privacy settings that a user could implement, and it comes down to good judgment and common sense. This isn't just limited to SWNs, it is a bad thing that injustices happen, but they'll happen on any level of the internet, if the person is ignorant enough to fall into a trap. It can happen to Myspace users, it can happen to blog users. The internet isn't safe, but, it's not dangerous either, if you have common sense. In conclusion, it's pretty selfish to have your viewpoint, because everyone makes accounts for different reasons. Just because you may not want to "waste your time on one" doesn't mean that it is, in fact, a waste of time. Thank You. -BBE |
21 | 60e43a68-2019-04-18T12:13:06Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick |
20 | ceed40d0-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00003-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Nazism is a more effective government than Communism Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reich |
14 | 88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00002-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | birth control should be covered by insurance Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up. |
18 | 7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Should Churches Pay Taxes I thank Zwatt for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent has made opening round arguments, this gives me licence to open with arguments, too. I am going, at least initially, to use the United States as an example of why churches should not pay taxes. Negation Case A1: The First Amendment In the United States, "the First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances" [1]. It would violate the U.S constitution to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. It would also violate the right to freedom of expression (freedom of speech) in that the government could shut down or reprimand a church that defaults on their payments, which would not allow them freedom to expression. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court found this very conclusion to be the just one: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" [3]. Violating the constitution strips humans of their basic human rights, which are natural and require good arguments to explain why they should be infringed upon. A2: Churches are not-for-profit Not-for-profit organisations are not taxed because they are not charging for a service. You can attend your local church, receive a service and not pay a dime. Yes, there are collection bowls, but you are not required to give anything, unlike a business wherein you will not be served if you do not pay. So, my opponent's claims of "religion in general is a multi-billion dollar business" is incorrect, for religion does not register as a business. Religion meets the 'tax-exemption' requirements of 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and hence classifies as a not-for-profit organisation [2]. Therefore, taxing churches would violate this religious legislation which exists to protect not-for-profit organisations since not-for-profit organisations contribute to the public's wellbeing without charging a price. What my opponent is suggesting is equivalent to taxing charities which also fall under the tax exemption of 501 (c)(3). A3: Disadvantaged and poor people rely on assistance from churches If churches were to be taxed, churches would suffer according to Vincent Becker (Monignor at the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, "[his church] base[s] all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings" [4]. In effect, what this will mean is that the once charitable services performed by the churches would now be eliminated or delegated to local governments. A4: Church members who donate will be taxed twice First, there will be an initial income taxing for the members, Then, the money that is donated will be taxed again the church is taxed. Why is it fair to tax these institutions twice? A5: Small churches will suffer greatly A survey, undertaken in 2010, found that "congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover" [5]. If churches were forced to pay taxes on top of that, a lot of church's existences would be threatened [7]. Counter-Arguments "Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes" Here, my opponent has committed a Negative Proof Fallacy, in which he shifts the burden of proof onto the people who should be negating [6]. Seeing that he is to affirm, he is the one to give reasons why "churches should pay taxes" (i.e. the resolution). To put this into perspective, it would be like him asking me to disprove that pink unicorns exist (his effective words: show why churches should not be taxed), and if I cannot, then pink unicorns exist (his words: "there is no legitimate reason"). "…just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt." As shown earlier, churches are exempt due to not-for-profit status, not due to "claim[ing] religious belief". "Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church." As shown earlier, religions are not businesses. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.irs.gov... [3] John Marshall, US Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland, supreme.justia.com, 1819 [4] Brian Quinn, "Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?," www.wellsvilledaily.com, Mar. 1, 2011 [5] Nicole Neroulias, "Study: Churches Inching Back from Recession," www.usatoday.com, Apr. 20, 2011 [6] http://rationalwiki.org... [7] Scott Tibbs, "Should Churches Pay Taxes?" ConservaTibbs.com, June 24, 2009 |
28 | 2e0aacbd-2019-04-18T18:33:31Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | more guns less crime I'm bored so. .. Just bringing back Koopin's speaches. |
19 | 1b0bde15-2019-04-18T18:33:06Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Should be Legalized Defenses and Rebuttals D1: "I am arguing that the state...should not legalize it." R1: You offer a series of conclusions with absolutely no basis. The inclusion and equality of the homosexual community is actually a rather compelling reason, indeed. Why leave these people in civil unrest? People's sexuality are no individual person's business, for all intents and purposes, with the exception of scientific study. People do not necessarily get married to procreate; as there are exceptions to that rule that already exist, I have already shown in my previous arguments that it is fallacious to accept present exceptions, but not allow further exceptions in the interest of harmlessly benefiting a substantially large group of people. Moreover, homosexual couples can raise children, and rather functional children in fact, as has been shown repeatedly in related study: "Rosenfeld's study shows that children of gay and married couples had lower grade-repetition rates than their peers raised by opposite-sex unmarried couples and single parents. And all children living in some type of family environment did much better than those living in group housing. Those who were awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home were held back about 34 percent of the time." Therefore, if your main concern is preserving the lives of children, particularly unwanted children, in a practical fashion while at the same time, increasing the stability of future generations, then legalizing gay marriage can actually benefit that. D2: My opponent then lists...it should not be legalized. R2: That rebuttal was in response to your fallacious definition of marriage meant to specifically exclude homosexual marriage (when in fact, as I've shown, it actually adds support to why the government should federally approve homosexual marriage). I corrected your definitions with the actual definition of marriage, so that it is clear that marriage as a concept does not intrinsically exclude homosexuals. D3: My oppoent then...'marriages' shouldn't. R3: Here, my opponent applies a faulty assumption as proof to his premise, which is that marriage raises the likelihood for procreation. In fact, procreation is more likely between unwed couples that live together, according to the New York Times. D4: My last argument...homosexual marriages shouldnn't be legalized. R4: Indeed, you indicated yourself that your last argument was contingent on interpreting the legalization of gay marriage as a slippery slope, which is a fallacious interpretation. Moreover, women's suffrage did not directly result in the legalization of abortion; in fact, it was greatly influenced by the horrifying accounts of illegal abortions performed before the legislation's ratification that make it the lesser of two evils. Rebuttals and Defenses R1: My opponent...therefore it should not be legalized. D1: Marriage in medieval times was indeed sanctioned by the state, and financial benefits were in fact given to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples, as implied in my reference as follows: "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures." "In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained." Moreover, I have shown in earlier arguments that homosexual marriage can in fact benefit society in at least two major ways. R2: My opponent doesn't really do anything here but state that homosexuality is natural. Even though I disagree with my opponent on that, it is a subject for another debate at another time. D2: Given we are discussing the viability of same-sex marriages, the nature of homosexuality is indeed relevant. If homosexuality were indeed socially counterproductive or harmful in other manifestations, then there would be evidence to support stripping a group of people of rights they should have. Conclusion My opponent's case is clearly fallacious, as it is based on logical fallacies and faulty assumptions. Even his rebuttal to my first argument was based on a faulty assumption. He neglected to approach my second argument at all. The rational vote is clearly Pro. References http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.now.org... |
46 | 81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00003-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: "the sky isn"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive." >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can"t see on the internet -the problem of, "blocking and slowing down certain info is bad," is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, "making the Internet better." Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for "slow service," or being, "anti-free speech," so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, "dire problems?" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response |
18 | 9a840a37-2019-04-18T18:13:26Z-00007-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | debate on church cooperation I am glad that we are having this religous debate and may we discover truth in the area of church cooperation in evangelism. I will gladly present my first affirmative shortly but before that let us define the proposition. By the Scriptures, I mean the 66 inspired books of the Bible particularly the New Testament of God's Word. By "contrary to" we mean out of harmony with, not in agreement with, the scriptures. By "churches of Christ" we mean congregations of the Lord's people, Christians, using the term in the same sense as it occurs in Romans 16:16. By "in support for TV programs, Radio Programs and publications like Spiritual Sword and gospel advocate as means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the church." we mean that congregations can contribute to these organizations to accomplish the work of evangelism. First Affirmative What is not the issue The issue here is not whather churches can cooperate or not. The Scriptures clearly teach so. The issues are not over methods and arrangements whereby local churches do their own work of preaching the gospel. Also, local churches keep each other informed about their own affairs without violating the independence of the local church. The church in Jerusalem had a keen interest in the church in Antioch, and vice versa, and they exchanged news with each other (Acts 11:19-30). It is indeed scriptural for congregations to exchange bulletins or newsletters as a means of keeping each other informed about one another's affairs, and we should be interested in the work of the Lord in other localities. Furthermore, a local church may invite members of other congregations to come study the Bible with them. The church in Jerusalem welcomed Barnabas and Paul from Antioch to consider the question over circumcision and the keeping of the law (Acts 15:1-22). When a local church has a gospel meeting or lectureship and sends invitations to other congregations, inviting their members to attend, no autonomy is sacrificed.What is the issue Each local church has equal responsibility in the work of evangelism, commensurate with its own ability (Matthew 28:19-20). Thus, when churches send funds to another church to do the work of evangelism, the oversight of the work of all the churches involved is within the receiving church. Sending churches sacrifice oversight of part of their work and give up autonomy. In essence, there is one pattern (the autonomy of the local church) with two applications (cooperation for benevolence and for evangelism). This is not hard to understand. We often preach on "God's Two Laws of Pardon." God has one plan of salvation: by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10). But there is one set of conditions for forgiveness of the alien sinner and another for pardon of the erring child of God. One pattern - two applications. When many churches send to one for the work of evangelism, since the elders of the receiving church are overseeing a work that pertains equally to all the churches, a collectivity of churches precisely parallel to a Baptist association is created, something unknown to the New Testament. This is not true in benevolence, since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work. [1]Furthermore, my opponent has said, "My position is that there is no specific pattern in the first place: the choice of expenditure is an expedient based upon good judgement. We all know what the Commission says, "Go ... preach...""Grant, for argument's sake, that "all churches are under the great commission." Indeed, this would authorize churches to "go" and "preach." If it authorizes each church to go and preach, then each church must do so, but Annanicole's scheme has some churches funding the work and others overseeing and doing it. The great commission does not authorize an inter-church organization. It would simply authorize each church to "go" and "preach." Consider the Spiritual Sword arrangement. Many churches contribute thousands of dollars under the direction and oversight of the Getwell church in Memphis,Tenessee. Spiritual Sword does the "going" and "preaching" while the contributing churches do the funding. Where does the great commission provide for that? In the New Testament, each church, under the oversight of its own elders, went and preached (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 11:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 5:2). Do not forget missionary societies. If a church can "go" and "preach" by sending money to a sponsoring church and allowing it to employ the means and methods of preaching, why can it not send money to a missionary organization and thereby "go" and "preach"? True enough, We are at liberty to go in any expedient manner and we are at liberty to use the best possible avenues of evangelistic opportunity, but centralized control, the modern sponsoring church arrangement, as typified by Spirtual Sword and the like, is an organization, a conglomeration of churches that must use means and methods. There is no denial of the tenet that churches may employ expedient ways to go and preach. The sponsoring church plan is an organization, however, that must itself select the manner of its operation.Conclusion Maybe Annananicole can enlighten for us. But for me I will stand by the Bible for it is what sets us free. May God bless this debate and may one of us will see the truth in the light of the Scriptures. [1] http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... |
10 | 668db558-2019-04-18T12:38:45Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | The benefits of vaccines outweigh any harm I believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the harm caused. Good luck to my opponent. |
42 | c40de107-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should abortion be allowed A fertalized egg is not a person, it is a sex cell and has no autonimy of it's own- instead it is property of the mother, just like my sperm is my own property. |
19 | ea2e99e5-2019-04-18T18:31:36Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal You never said that the point of the debate was changing how society defines marriage. This debate is supposed to be on whether gay people should be allowed to get married. Therefore, my point is relevant. "I have proved why these religious beliefs are no reason why the government should not recognise gay marriage to support basing my arguments around the separation of the church and the state." You stated in your previous argument "This man is just one of the growing support for gay marriage within religious communities. This shows that even if religions were to hold power over the governments decision this would not restrict the passing of this motion for long because people are willing to accept others because most people are generally quite pleasant". When you brought up the religious supporters of gay marriage, you implied that religion should be part of the decision. The majority of the religious community is still against gay marriage. So if religion held power over government decisions, gay marriage would not be legalized. You did not prove anything about the separation of church and state. "Only a minority in society now still believe that gay marriage is wrong" Can you prove that statement? From what I know, a large percentage of society does not support gay marriage. "the common belief that we had about gay marriage being wrong stemmed from the fact that the government would not allow it to happen" I would also like to see the proof for that. "When we get rid of this last piece of "legal stigma" society can then fully integrate" You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support. If people hated gays before gay marriage was legal, they will hate them after it is legal. Society will still not fully integrate. But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole. The stigma and hate crimes relating to gay couples are directed at the LGBT community. The rest of society is not harmed by it. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit the LGBT community but it would not end the stigmas or hate crimes. It would also not benefit society as a whole. "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". This definition still supports my point. Gay couples can be united in a relationship LIKE that of a traditional marriage. It is called a civil union, so you are practically "married". It is not and should not be recognized by the law because it is not the same as a traditional marriage. "The only difference here is that heterosexual marriage is " recognized by law " and homosexual marriage is not. That is what this debate is about." You should really decide what this debate is about. Since at the beginning of you argument you stated "the whole point of this debate is that we should be changing how society defines marriage. That is the definition as it stands the now but this debate is about changing the definition". "Because gay marriage does benefit our society and it can lead to improvements in other societies" You have not proved why gay marriage is beneficial to a society so you cannot say it would lead to improvements in other societies. You also say in your first argument that this debate is about American government and society. If this debate is about America, it does not matter whether or not it benefits other societies. Gay marriage should not be legalized for multiple reasons. First, it would require the definition of marriage to be changed. If the government changes its definition of marriage to allow gay couples to get married, people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets. Marriage is a very sacred thing to many people. Allowing gay marriage would take away the value of marriage because it would show that the meaning of marriage can be changed to suit the needs of a group of people. Gay couples are already allowed to have civil unions. They can be joined together but it is not called the same thing as when heterosexual couples are joined. They are not the same thing so they should not be called the same thing. Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. The majority of heterosexual couples can procreate or were able to procreate at some point. There are exceptions but those are exactly that, exceptions. Homosexual couples cannot naturally procreate. There are no exceptions. |
22 | 71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00001-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (No really you totally killed it) "Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. " Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution "communism is a logical solution to the conflict" this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. "Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state" Okay so here's where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I'll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality's, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don't talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said "history can be viewed as a constant class struggle" so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that… And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org... |
19 | 369e4f1b-2019-04-18T19:30:47Z-00007-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States This debate was issued to InquireTruth... twice. He let it expire both times. Now I open it up to the public to defend his position because he apparently will not do so. *************************************************** The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. From Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State. 750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states. Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part: (1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage. Inquire truth has put forth the following in another debate: **************************************** Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? **************************************** To address the issues: 1. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority. 2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on the very concepts that Synderella mentioned in your other debate. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Homosexuality is not sexual perversion. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality. 3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the right to choose who they can marry. If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction. Clearly, homosexuals lack the right to choose who to marry. 4. My opponent asserts that marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent. ************************************ To head off a couple counterarguments... IT asserts that there are "trivial benefits" that "do not trump the consequences" of legalizing gay marriage. However, he never states what these consequences ARE. More, stabler families? Solemnization of relationships for a segment of the populace? It sounds like IT is afraid that allowing gays to marry will suddenly have people "catching gay." >> "We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights." But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient. >> "100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex." This is the same way as choosing your partner how? >> "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion." The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus. ********************************************** The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that: 1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class. Either of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard: First, it must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs. AFFIRMED. |
27 | ea8bf583-2019-04-18T15:13:22Z-00000-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control For the final round, I will be rebutting my opponent's Round 3 responses to my initial arguments.= Final Rebuttals =More Guns, Less CrimeEngland and Wales' homicide rate jumped following both gun restrictions, showing that gun control does not work in eliminating crime. The graph doesn't "look high" because England and Wales' homicide rate per million people were together in one graph. Remember, we are measuring the murder rate over time and how the trend changes when gun control laws are implemented. I have clearly shown that the murder rate rose, and that gun control does not work, especially not in this instance. Pro drops the facts I showed about how the crime rates in European countries with various gun laws were higher with more laws and lower with less.Pro then goes on to examine my source and pulls out the Chicago graph that measured the murder rate in response to the strict gun bans. The graph did fluctuate a bit but was also cut off at 2007, so allow me to provide some missing info: An Illinois concealed carry law was enacted in July 2013. The Chicago homicide rate of the first quarter of 2014 saw the rate at its lowest since 1958[1]. This is a significant change that "coincidentally" happened right after the ban on carrying guns was lifted.It is true that the UK's murder rate is slightly lower than America's, but it has been rising significantly ever since gun laws have been enacted. America has the highest ownership rate of guns in the world, with 90 guns per 100 people. If more guns means more crime, then that should mean that the United States has the highest crime rate in the world. However, the U.S.'s homicide rate is not in the top 10, or the top 50, or the top 100 - it's homicide rate per capita is #111, despite having so many guns[2]. Most of the countries above the U.S. are progressive countries with gun control laws, so the mantra that "more guns, more crime" is a very false one indeed. Indeed, the crime rate can be affected by different factors, but gun control ultimately has the largest effect since it directly targets the amount of guns used for crime.The "homicides with large anomalies unrelated to guns" in the UK graph means that homicides were committed using knives and other non-firearm weapons. This shows that even if criminals don't have guns, they will still find ways to commit crime without them. The large spike was the result of the criminal response to the UK gun ban in 1997.We must note that my opponent has not provided any counter evidence to suggest that gun control does reduce crime, he has just stated his issues with my evidence.Self-DefenseTheoretically a criminal may have a harder time finding a gun with gun control, but they will put more effort into to obtaining illegal guns and non-firearm weapons that will not make the homicide rate lower, as we have seen with several examples above.As for the objections to my sources 5 and 6, the people who used guns for self protection were actually 9%, not .9%. This plus 7% makes 16%. We must remember that the study was focused on defensive gun uses, which is the polar opposite of offensive or criminal uses. The rest of the data is simply not noted, so it is wrong to jump to conclusions.Pro looks at the introduction of my round 3 source 5 study instead of reading the rest of it. The last line of the introduction reads, "There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?" The next section is titled "Dr. Kleck's Answer" where he uses multiple paragraphs to answer this question. Pro clearly has not read the rest of the study.GunCite.com is not at all biased. Just because the name includes the words "gun cite" does not mean it is anything seriously leaning toward one side. My opponent has attempted to dismiss the site because it's pro-gun, but that does not refute the numbers or data collection. In doing so he has committed the Genetic Fallacy[3]. Lastly, the article may be made in 2003, but the numbers and data are still as true today as they were then, so this is not even close to making the article wrong.Thanks a bunch for the debate Pro! It's been a pleasure.[1] http://www.ijreview.com...[2] Pro's source, Round 3[3] http://www.nizkor.org... |
Subsets and Splits