query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
42 | 94e6a5e1-2019-04-18T19:05:27Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball. I would like to throw out some figures to help shape my approach to the debate. First off, the comparison of the two games a they pertain to their schedules and times to each other. A baseball season is 162 games long, which means that the importance of each game is only .61% to the season total. In other words, if you lose a baseball game, it does not affect the outcome as a whole as much as hockey. There are 82 games in a season of hockey, which means each game is worth 1.12% (almost double) of the season and would thus lead each game of hockey to hold twice the importance of a baseball game in typical regular season circumstances. With more importance of the game to the season usually brings more emotional value for the spectator. Another point to be made about the spectator aspect of the sport is the amount of action that each viewer gets to watch compared to the time they get to invest in each game. A baseball game has no time limit, so basically the monotonous past time could theoretically take forever, but for the purposes of this debate I will say that the average game of baseball is around 3 hours. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The average time of action for "ball in play" is 12 minutes (. http://ask.yahoo.com...) which puts the action per game at 6.66%. To put that in perspective, that means for 93% of the game, there is no baseball actually being played. This time is taken up by commercials, throwing the ball back to the pitcher, spitting, and re-adjusting cups. Hockey generally takes 2.5 hours to watch and contains 60 minutes of action (3 periods of 20 minutes). This is a game of 40% action, and when compared to baseball has far less interruptions and far more action for the viewer. With more time of action for hockey, it means that the time invested by the viewer for each game yields more action and thus more potential for excitement. Now lets move to the athletics of each sport. A baseball and a hockey puck weigh the same (5 oz) and generally reach the same mph during game play (between 70 and 105 mph). As far as the physical aspects oh the game, hockey definitely outweighs the power needed on both offense and defense. Hockey entails skating, checking, fighting, taking checks, deking and playing defense, all while you are on your shift. While you are on your shift, you have to be able to play both offense and defense within seconds of each other, and also play as a team on both offense and defense. In baseball, you take breaks between each offense and defense switch, meaning you have time to mentally prepare and adjust and so on. While you are on offense in baseball, you are no longer a part of a team, you basically just a hitter or a runner. (I won't get into pinch hitting or running because I feel it is just absurd in the first place to have someone of better skill take over for you in a pinch. ) As a runner you generally only have to run between 90 and 270 ft at a time. As a hitter you have to hit a ball traveling between 70-105 mph with a bat. Some people say it is the hardest thing to do in sports, but if that is true why are there so many hits? On defense in baseball, you are expected to throw the baseball between 90 and 270 ft once in a while when the ball it hit to you. Other than that it is catching the ball and fielding the ball in typically undemanding circumstances. Now to really show the difficulty of each sport for the athlete, I will show the scoring numbers in each sport. In hockey, the save percentage for goalies is on average .90. This means that the goalie will save 90% of all the teams shots, and for an individual it is much harder do be in that 10% when you share the ice with 4 other guys. In baseball, a non pitcher averages between .25 and .30 batting average. This means that an individual on offense in hockey has a harder time scoring and being in a scoring position than a baseball player. That is the bulk of my argument but I would also like to add a few extra points that can be supplementary evidence for my reasoning. Baseball takes 8 breaks between innings where hockey only takes 2 breaks between periods. Ice is a much harder surface to play on. Hockey requires more padding than baseball because it is more physical. The coaches/managers of hockey actually wear respectable clothing in hockey, not the players uniform. Hockey is played indoors so there are rarely if any cancelled games per season and there are no rain delays or rain outs like in baseball. Lastly, any "sport" that can be played more than once in a day (back to back double headers in baseball) isn't really that demanding of a sport anyway. Plus baseball players get paid way too much for what they offer athletically and steroids just doesn't really help their reputation anyway. So basically, it is harder to score in hockey, it is more physically demanding of its athletes, spectators get more bang for their buck and each game is worth more in the season total which makes for each game more important. If you look at the amount of minutes of action each sport offers per season, baseball averages 1,944 minutes where as hockey offers 4,920 and baseball takes up 5 months of playing every day where hockey is a concentrated action packed sport of athletics and strategy. That is all I have for now and I am looking forward to my opponents response. |
31 | c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a disease This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. "What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate? |
18 | 2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches should be taxed. Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] "Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions."For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:■ the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and■ the organization's purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike."[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: "At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large."[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org... |
10 | f351685d-2019-04-18T12:56:50Z-00007-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. This debate should be impossible to accept, if you accept without my permission then you shall forfeit the debate. If you wish to accept then please leave a comment.This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Con must present their case in R1, and must waive in the final round11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and 'checks and balances' for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://www.dictionary.com...)Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (http://www.dictionary.com...)Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (http://www.dictionary.com...) |
29 | 188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00006-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | should all illegal immigrants get amnesty I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale. |
4 | 1375840e-2019-04-18T19:40:29Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | cricket no more a gentleman's game u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me? |
18 | 8bc06cc8-2019-04-18T13:52:54Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | is Pepsi better than Coke How to recognise lots of different trees from quite a long way away The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch The larch |
1 | 302aacc2-2019-04-18T15:07:51Z-00000-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should Computers replace Teachers Extend all arguments. Vote for me because me opponent forfeited and did not respond to my arguments. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West. |
50 | 41247294-2019-04-18T18:34:58Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States "First, I would like to address the violence aspect. It is proven that domestic abuse and violence are more prevalent in oppressed communities, who are not given equal social and societal privileges and recognition. " "According to. .. .? My opponent brings up the fact that gays are prone to violence because they are oppressed, bringing in an example of black people. First of all, gays have the exact same rights as everybody else. Marriage is not a federal or state right, instead it is a priviedge. To argue that black people have less rights is absurd. They have exactly the same rights as everybody. By bringing the black case into the argument, you have contradicted yourself. If giving the same rights to black people as everybody else doesn't work (causes violence etc. . ), then what is to say that it will help gays (even though they have the same rights). My opponent keeps going on how minorities are more likely to commit worse crimes. This is false as he gave no evidence of it. "Marriage isn't a right" The principle and privilege of marriage falls upon the ability to fecundate within the marriage. There is absolutely to societal purpose for gays to marry. My opponent said, "Why not dissolve all heterosexual marriages". The reason for this is because they serve a common purpose, procreation. Procreation is highly beneficial to society. Gays cannot provide this service. The prevalent case with the pro-gay marriage community is that they believe that everybody who is in love, should marry. This falls false on a few account. If everybody who loved was given the privilege of marrying, then we should let brothers and sisters marry. After all, sometimes they love eachother. We should also legalize polygamy because the people love each other. If the state must recognize marital privileges solely based on the purpose of love, then what right does it have to deny it to the above mentioned criteria? "Children need both a mother and a father to function correctly. This simply isn't the case. Most major studies have prove that the only thing a child needs to have a stable, nuclear (two parental figures) family environment to function. " My opponent has claimed a position, with no sources to back it up. I have my position backed up with numerous sources and facts. David Popenoe's new books "Life Without Father", clearly shows the detrimental and harmful effects that SSM marriages have on children. "It helps economically: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy. "My opponent is nitpicking facts and ignoring the big picture. There are about 9 million gays in the US (3%). Lets assume that 66% of them will marry. That leaves us with about 6 million gays.6 million/2= 3 millionThat is about 3 million couples. These are the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. Right to benefits while married: employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: veteran's disability Supplemental Security Income disability payments for federal employees Medicaid property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3] Joint and family-related rights: joint filing of bankruptcy permitted joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce domestic violence intervention access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse Court notice of probate proceedings Domestic violence protection orders Existing homestead lease continuation of rights Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption Funeral and bereavement leave Joint adoption and foster care Joint tax filing Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society Legal status with stepchildren Making spousal medical decisions Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation Right of survivorship of custodial trust Right to change surname upon marriage Right to enter into prenuptial agreement Right to inheritance of property Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege) For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: Social Security pension veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing survivor benefits for federal employees survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts Just by looking at the list, we can see the economic detriment that gay marriage would have on the economy. I will not go into statistics as there is no concrete amount. It is obvious that these benefits financially outweigh the benefits that my opponent has brought up. Conclusion Marriage is a privilege, not a right. My opponent has tried to show how gay marriage couples are violent because of other reasons. This is false. Heterosexual couples benefit to society, while gays don't. Homosexual couples will be an economic detriment. Thank you. |
40 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI |
10 | e0e14c7d-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines can cause autism and other problems So, there will be deaths from vaccines. But clearly, if we knew who would suffer from vaccines, we wouldn't give them the shot (Well, to a certain extent we do know some people who couldn't handle vaccines, but I'm talking about the ones we don't know). But, if we don't, then with all the vaccine-caution parents would be way to scared to give their children vaccines. That would be terrible. We need those that can get vaccines to get them. In a sense, it's like sacrificing one to save to save the rest. It isn't something we want, but it's needed to protect from the diseases. |
7 | 8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00007-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. "The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America."(1) "5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. "(1) "State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored."(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org... |
1 | 302aacc2-2019-04-18T15:07:51Z-00007-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Should Computers replace Teachers I think that computers should not replace teachers. This is because teachers are face to face explainers while the computer just tells you what to do. For example, if you are stuck on problem, the teacher can explain to you. Meanwhile computers ask you to press the hint button. if you still dont get it, you press for another hint. Also teachers explain things with real life problems. On computers you just read straight of. |
16 | 8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00006-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement |
29 | f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move. |
12 | 8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | teens should beallowed to get birth control I think that teens should get birth control because then they would be even more irresponsible than before now knowing that they can do whatever they what without parents consent and know they have a backup. That is very sick and really disgraceful to show that teens can get anything they want. Soon they'll be debating over if the legal limit of alcohol should be 16. I think that birth control should be for the adults because they will know when to use it and teenagers will use it maybe even daily. Birth control is a heavy burden and never be use to a teenager, even a responsible one. |
2 | 9fb05020-2019-04-18T17:57:33Z-00007-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private) Two type of smoking will be introduced in the following argument: cocaine smoking and cigarette smoking. Table of Content Introduction Mechanism: Cocaine smoking vs. Cigarette smoking Health Effect: Cocaine smoking vs. Cigarette smoking Conclusion: Cocaine and Cigarette, they are twin brothers 1. Introduction Cigarette smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Cigarette smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general. [1] In this debate, I will strive to establish the linkage between smoking cigarette and smoking cocaine in an attempt to show that if the United States bans the cocaine, the federal government should also ban cigarette smoking nationwide. In the United States, cocaine is Schedule II according to the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. [2] 2. Mechanism Cocaine Cocaine is an additive drug derived from coca or prepared synthetically, used as an illegal stimulant. (Oxford Dictionary) In an attempt to represent the similarity between cocaine and cigarette, it is better to understand how cocaine is abused. There are generally three routes of administration used for cocaine: snorting, injecting, and smoking. [3] It is the smoking route that would be the focus of this discussion. Smoking cocaine involves inhaling cocaine vapor or smoke into the lungs, where it would subsequently absorbed into the bloodstream. [3] The intensity and duration of cocaine"s effects usually entail increased energy, reduced fatigue, and mental alertness. [3] In general, the faster cocaine is absorbed into the bloodstream and delivered to the brain, the more intense the high. [3] Smoking cocaine is considered to produce a quick and strong high. [3] On the other hand, faster absorption usually means shorter duration of action. [3] High from smoking cocaine, in general, may last only 5 to 10 minutes, thereby creating a constant demand for drugs to sustain the high. [3] Cocaine is a strong central nervous system stimulant that increases levels of dopamine. [3] Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that mediates pleasure in the brain. A neurotransmitter is a chemical substance that causes the transfer of the impulse to another nerve fiber. (Oxford Dictionary) Dopamine is considered to be associated with pleasure reward. [3] Normally, dopamine is released by a neuron in response to a pleasurable signal (e. g. , watching sports or the smell of good food), and then recycled back into the neuron that released it. Releasing of dopamine stimulates one to seek our pleasurable activity. Cocaine would actively prevent the dopamine from being recycled, thereby causing an excessive amount of the dopamine to build up. It is this excess of dopamine that is responsible for cocaine"s euphoric effects. [3] With repeated use, cocaine can cause long-term changes in the brain"s reward system which would eventually lead to addiction (repeated consumption in order to sustain the pleasure). [3] Cigarette The additive substance in Cigarette is nicotine, a toxic colorless or yellowish oily liquid. It acts as a stimulant in small doses. (Oxford Dictionary) Nicotine essentially works in the same way as cocaine in terms of its biological process in human brains. Basically, nicotine increases levels of dopamine in the brain reward circuits, and actively prevent dopamine from being recycled back thereby accumulating an excessive amount of neurotransmitters. [4] This reaction is similar to that seen with cocaine abuse and is thought to underlie the pleasurable sensations experienced by many smokers. Long-term brain changes induced by continued and repeated nicotine exposure result in addiction. [4] Cigarette smoking, similar to cocaine smoking, produces a rapid distribution of nicotine to the brain. The acute effects of nicotine dissipate quickly, as do the associated feelings of reward, which causes the Cigarette smoker to continue demanding more cigarettes to sustain pleasure. [4] Therefore, in term of the working mechanism, nicotine is no different from cocaine. 3. Health Effect Cocaine In terms of health effect, smoking cocaine can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke. Bing-patterned cocaine use may lead to irritability, restlessness, and anxiety. Cocaine abusers can also experience sever paranoia, an effect rarely realized by cigarette smokers. [3] Cigarette Cigarette smoking, to a certain extent, has more sever effect on health than cocaine smoking. There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 4,000 chemicals. [5] At lest 50 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer. Nicotine is considered the culprit of addiction. Cancer causing agents are substance such as tar. General consensus about the health effect of cigarette smoking includes increased risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseases, coronary heart disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm (i. e. , swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body where it runs through the abdomen), and other numerous type of cancers, including but not limited to, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, cancer of the pharynx (throat) and stomach cancer. In addition, smoking may also have many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms include irritability, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbances. [1] 4. Conclusion Cocaine and Cigarette are no different. In fact, they are twin brothers. In terms of the chemical mechanism, they both fundamentally change the brain"s reward system by blocking the recycling of dopamine. In terms of long term health effect, smoking cigarette may even cause more problems than smoking cocaine due to the fact that there are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes and at least 50 of the chemicals generated from burning are carcinogenic. Therefore, if the United States outlaw the sale of cocaine, so should it ban the sale of cigarette. Thank you. References [1]. . http://www.cdc.gov... [2]. . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. . http://www.drugabuse.gov... [4]. . http://www.drugabuse.gov... [5]. . http://en.wikipedia.org... |
31 | fbd3b59c-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Vegan/Animal Rights "we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this." I thought you were arguing that eating meat is 100% natural... "You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution." You must not know what evolution is. What is your point?? "We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring." We were not "given" theses things. They were carried by our genes because they helped for survival. " If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race." It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore. "Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores." We classify animals by the way they are built. We are built like herbivores. Most people believe humans are carnivorous/omnivorous creatures"atop the food chain"who have been eating meat, eggs and dairy since the beginning of time. I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain. Most large herbivores such as rhinos, hippos, elephants and gorillas could also kill a human easily, if provoked. These animals are also ahead of us in the food chain. Humans, historically and scientifically, have always been near the bottom of the food chain. Killing during a one-on-one confrontation without weapons, and the ability to consume bloody raw flesh right from the bone without having it cause disease later on in life, have always been the only true factors in determining physiology and placement in the food chain. All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. Humans have to cook certain parts of the dismembered animal so we don't become violently ill. That unequivocally makes us fake carnivores/omnivores. Our human physiology is such that all the tools, weapons, hubris, deceit and technology have not magically transformed us into carnivorous/omnivorous creatures. Many anthropologists and medical experts attest to the fact that humans are completely herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states, "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh"which contains cholesterol and saturated fat"was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." Dr. Milton Mills wrote an indisputable essay about human physiology as well. In their book The Vegetarian Way, nutritionists Virginia and Mark Messina compiled an easy-to-understand chart comparing human bodies to those of herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. " I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating" You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people?? "it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt." You wanna talk about debt? It takes hundreds of gallons of water to make 1 pound of meat. Hundreds of pounds of corn, soy, and other grains. The meat industry is putting us in debt. "Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument:" Do you see me cherry picking you arguments for grammar errors?? No. Sounds like you are just trying to win votes. "If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you." Sure... Let's compare the bodies of humans and herbivores to the bodies of carnivores and omnivores. First, the length of intestines in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body (I am being generous compared to the research of Mills and the Messinas). In contrast, the length of intestines in carnivores/omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso. (The length of the trunk/torso is used as the means of comparison rather than overall body length or height because humans are bipedal animals whereas most other animals are quadrupeds.) Moreover, the interior surface of human intestines is heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivores/omnivores tend to be smooth in comparison. The relatively short intestinal length in carnivores/omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allow rotting animal flesh, animal protein, casein, cholesterol, trans fatty acids and the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products to pass through quickly; that is why it's impossible for any real carnivore/omnivore to clog their arteries. Clogged arteries, however, affects more than 50% percent of all meat, dairy and egg-eaters in this day and age! In previous generations atherosclerosis affected around 35% of the meat, dairy and egg-eating population. The only surprising aspect of the aforementioned study was the scientists' refusal to blame animal products as the main cause of atherosclerosis. Scientists, however, like all meat- dairy and egg-eating addicts, succumb to the same idiocy and incoherency of addiction-related problem-solving, too. Fortunately, some medical professionals aren't addicts and are capable of explaining the truth. Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham Heart Study (the world's longest running heart study), supports the aforementioned findings with additional claims about cancer rates dropping 60 percent if people stopped eating meat, cheese, milk and eggs. Other dietary and non-dietary factors can affect heart health, too. Sugar, the excessive amount of fat found in oils, stress, a lack of sleep, the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta, smoking tobacco, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. Therefore, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. Veganism not only ensures a greater reduction of cruelty on this planet than any other measure you could take; it also prevents, treats or cures heart diseases, prostate, colon, breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, obesity, asthma and impotence, just to name a few. According to a plethora of scientific articles, most meat, dairy and egg-eaters will get cancer, osteoporosis or diabetes, while more than 50 percent will have a non-genetically-induced heart attack or stroke. Concerning cancer, there's no doubt that sugar, the oil and fat in fried foods, artificial additives, human-made trans fatty acids found in junk food, and the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta cause health problems, while non-dietary factors harm us, too. Stress, a lack of sleep, smoking tobacco, chemical pollution, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. However, since animal flesh and the things that come out of animals are always toxic, the main cause of cancer will always be animal protein, casein, the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products, and the 2-9 percent of naturally-occurring trans-fatty acids found in meat and dairy. Even though we're all born with cancer cells, the cells won't "activate" and turn deadly unless they are "expressed". So, preemptively amputating one's breasts (mastectomy), or taking some other drastic action, will NOT prevent cancer development if the cell "activators" are still present. Since cancer thrives in the acidic environment that animal protein creates, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. cited: For purposes of this essay I will use the abbreviation "meat-eater" to refer to any human who eats not only meat, but also dairy products, eggs, and honey. 3. For although there are bodies more massive than Jupiter beyond the trans-Neptunian bodies, at that distance the sun's gravitation would be too weak to hold such a massive body within an orbit about the sun. 4. Henry S. Salt, Logic of the Larder. Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914). In this context Salt is actually referring to yet another pathetic defense of meat-eating, which argues that animals should be grateful to the persons who eat them, since without a demand for these animals, they would never have existed! To be honest, I was sorely tempted to write another essay in this series, and call it The Insipid "But the Animals Wouldn't Exist if We Didn't Eat Them" Argument. However, no one can improve on what Salt has already had to say about it, so I gladly refer readers to his essay instead. |
20 | 61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me. |
20 | 349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00004-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life |
28 | 6f54d3b4-2019-04-18T19:32:51Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | sould abortion be legal =====Counterarguments===== "this is not used about crime but about responsibility. " ----> Responsibility? So if a kid procrastinates, which means he is irresponsible, should he be punished by law? Or what if I oversleep? The law should be concerned with protecting it's citizens from other citizens, not to try to be a nanny. 1. Life Organism My opponent argues that since a fetus is an organism, then abortion should not be legal. I have two objections to this: A. Life forms aren't necessarily human beings. A plant is an organism. An insect is an organism. Cattle are organisms. So everything I kill a mosquito I should be imprisoned? Everything I eat a salad I should be arrested? Every steak I touch should give me 15-25 years in jail? Preposterous. B. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of a human being. Not all life organisms, such as a fetus, are humans. Thus, abortion should be legal. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has not shown how killing a fetus is murder. He has not shown how killing organisms should be murder or should take importance over the rights of a mother. |
50 | ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00006-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The "public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state " and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into "real freedom" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals" "power to say no", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, "This unpaid work is valuable and"UBI is recognition of that." Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. "There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers"" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation. |
31 | 21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00000-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated "Cancer is a disease". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls. |
21 | 9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate. |
14 | 791017d-2019-04-18T12:57:16Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Being Transgender is not a Sin Being Transgender is a Congenital ConditionTransgender women are women because of biological reality. Many studies show that transgender women's brain are physiologically female. In this sense, transgenders are in the same boat as intersex people. Both faces biological reality, so to speak.Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (Kruijver et al. , May 2000). In their study of six MTF GID sufferers, a femaleR08;sized BSTc was present in all subjects. Additionally, the size of the BSTc was not influenced by taking sex hormones in adulthood. This implies that these individuals had a powerful biological force compelling them to be female, rather than just a psychological conviction" (Nicola Tugnet et al. 2007).For a number of sexually dimorphic brain structures or processes, signs of feminisation or masculinisation are observable in transsexual individuals, which, during hormonal treatment, partly seem to further adjust to characteristics of the desired sex (Smith ES, 2015). According to a 2009 study, being a male to female transsexualism has a genetic cause. Australian researchers have identified a significant link between a gene involved in testosterone action and male-to-female transsexualism.A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects (p=.04). (Hary L et al. 2009). Not all cisgender women (women born with XX chromosome) experience "menstrual cramps, pregnancy and dozens of other things women experience." For instance, a cisgender woman with Mayer-Rockitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) does not have a uterus or a womb. Studies show that transgenders are born that way. The strongest evidence to suggest that abnormal prenatal brain differentiation may lead to gender identity disorder comes from a recent study examining hypothalamic brain nuclei in men with gender identity disorder ( Zhou et al. 1995) The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation (Garcia-Falgueras A 2010). RebuttalsMost gender dysphoric children grow up to be gay or lesbian.Patients with non-persistent GD (whether children, adolescent or adult) is not a case of Irreversible Transgenderism because by very definition GD is persistent cross-gender identification.Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism (Alexander Corte et al. 2008).Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality (Drescher J et al. 2014).Of children with even severe gender dysphoria and cross-sex identification, about 85% do not develop a persistent transsexual identity in adolescence. Reliable indicators are not so far available regarding which gender dysphoric children cease to be so in puberty and who develop transsexual identity. Medical interventions are therefore not warranted in pre-pubertal children In light of current knowledge, transsexual identity in adolescence is persistent and medical interventions may be appropriate (Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2015). Con, note that sexual orientation is different from gender identity. Do not confuse the two. Deuteronomy 22:5Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing. CAH and other forms of intersex conditions with GD diagnosis (e.g. XX male syndrome etc.) show us that genes and genitalia are not the determiners of gender but the brain itself. Thus, if the scope of Deut 22:5 were universal, then, intersex people with GD is wrongfully included in that proscription since modern science hasn't yet been available in the ancient world. Yet in our time Deut 22:5 is not applicable to intersex people with GD since all of today's Christian denomination encourage sex reassignment and gender transition to such people! Why not encourage sex reasignment to transsexuals with GD as well? Bottom line: GD diagnosis covers both intersex people and transgenders. Patients with GD (whether trans or intersex) equally deserve to receive medical treatment for GD. 1 Corinthians 6:9The only Biblical usage of malakoi [male prostitutes, NRSV] in the context of sinful behavior is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Since malakoi is side by side arsenokites [man lying in bed], it connotes same-sex sexual activity. In the context, it refers to heterosexual males commiting homoeroticism as a form of idolatry (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:17-18). Bottom line: Con's argument is wishful thinking.1 Corinthians 6:9 does not talk about people with GD because if it were, then, intersex people will be included in that proscription! Deuteronomy 23:1Deuteronomy 23:1 is clearly about eunuchs. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus himself welcomes eunuchs! Therefore, [Jesus] cogently argued that Deuteronomy 23:1 is now null.Psalm 139:13God is perfect (Psalm 18:30). Every one is created by God from birth even from the womb (Psalm 139:13). Blindness is not part of the original design (Genesis 1). Judaism believed that being blind from birth is a sin (cf. John 9:3). Being an eunuch is excluded in Judaism (Deut 23:1). The argument of Con holds no water because in the New Testament, both conditions were welcomed by Jesus Christ himself! There's a man blind from birth (John 9:1) and there's a man eunuch from birth (Matthew 19:12). Birth defects are not mistakes but God's way of displaying his glory(cf. John 9:1-3; Matthew 19:11-12). Neither Eve were created blind nor were Adam created an eunuch! The Biblical Ethics of Gender Reassignment You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-- beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NLT) Dear friend, I hope all is well with you and that you are as healthy in body as you are strong in spirit. 3 John 1:2 (NLT) The Bible allows gender reassignment since those medical treatments are good and beneficial for the health of patients with Gender Dysphoria. has been demonstrated as the most effective treatment for patients affected by gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder), in which patients do not recognize their gender (sexual identity) as matching their genetic and sexual characteristics (Selvaggi G, 2011). Although current transgender treatment is relatively invasive and does not address the problem completely, it is the most successful intervention available. Studies report very high transgender patient satisfaction with sexual reassignment. Thus far, the largest evaluation has been a survey of Dutch transgender patients. Among the 1,285 patients surveyed, 1,280 were satisfied (Joshua D. Safer et al. 2008).I can't understand why people suffering with GD is being tauted as sinning. People who twist God's word to say what it doesn't say is the one sinning! Bottom line: Being transgender is not a sin because any patient with GD diagnosis receiving medical treatment is not sinning. |
3 | 9d3685a4-2019-04-18T19:13:30Z-00002-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Answers to her previous questions: Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct? Yes. Can a government impose taxes? They can but should they? Do any countries of the current day use free trade? If so… State All Nations. Yes they work with other countries. Look to Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 31 July 1975- renamed 2 November 2005 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) AANZFTA ASEAN Plus Three African Free Trade Zone (AFTZ) East African Community (EAC) Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Southern African Development Community SADC) Southern African Customs Union (SACU) Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 5 August 2004 Central American Integration System (SICA) Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ) European Economic Area (EEA) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement (CISFTA) - 15 april 1994 Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) - 29 March 1996 Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) - June 1957 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) - 18 February 1960 Andean Community (CAN) G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) Mercosur (Mercosul) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)… all of these agreements and unions are currently operating under free trade. Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct? It depends on what trade you are considering. Are we talking legal trade or illegal trade? They could have the power, however they do not have the authority because they are the government and trade is part of the economic sector of the United States. If the government were to control all trade we would be nothing more than If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade? Who said some countries were harmed by free trade? Everything has negative potential. However the degree to which the negative potential is seen is what matters most. Free Trade has a lesser degree of negative potential than what economic sanctions have. So therefore free trade is a better option. What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding? Government funding would not be affected because free trade has no government interference. If anything free trade would create jobs and help the environment. How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives? By having free trade we allow all countries to grow to some degree and we eliminated unstable governments. By having all stable governments we will be able to achieve what we need without having to worry about the random country that is about to fall back into communism…you know who you are. How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically? Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.) Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit? Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition? If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well? No because industries are different from the one you are talking about. I am going to guess you meant business. However to answer your question, the trade will be done throughout the entire world. The investment of a few entrepreneurs into one industry will be miniscule compared to the entire world. How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…? it does so by allowing the citizerns of cuba to gain the money they need and freely trade with the united states to be able to purchase the materials they wish at a cheaper price than having to go through the castro himself. How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism? What is the link there? it would in Cuba because as previously stated we would allow the citizens to purchase goods that are cheaper from other countries and just by doing that, we are taking away income from the castro himself. By taking away a majority of his income we will then continue to criticize his government until it finally collapsed. Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present? (Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?) Because as I stated in my case we would undermine his authority and as previously stated we would criticize his government. Within time the citizens of Cuba would overthrow his socialism and replace it with a much more stable form of government. Democracy is the most common kind of government with the most benefits. It is also one of the most stable forms too. And of course I got a quote from the Castro himself, I went to Cuba asked him and he gave me a quote about his demise. It was especially hard because in the current embargo one cannot travel to Cuba unless they are of Cuban decent. And I am merely German. A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct? Depends on the nation. ____________________________________________________________ Now time ask questions :) What exactly is a right reason? Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon? Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars? Are all laws just and right? Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them? Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough? |
17 | 5ed9d8f9-2019-04-18T17:23:34Z-00003-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana's Legalization Hello, and thank you for making your argument clear and with some valid points. I say I disagree with some of your points and will address each of your points respectively. "1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization." -Weed would be taxed, as alcohol and cigarettes currently are. Some may find this to be a negative aspect to its legalisation. -Like second hand smoke, people may inadvertently get high from breathing in others' smoke in public places when they do not wish to. This is a negative effect that may cause health issues to the public. -The legalisation of weed may promote the drug for recreational use by people who had previously not tried it. It would mean that the government approved its usage within the country and would therefore not condone getting high - something which changes behaviour in some negative ways. "a) Marijuana is not addictive." -It is. Anything that is in some way interpreted by the brain has the ability to be addictive. People become addicted to online games despite not taking in any substance. Caffeine can be addictive. Chicken burgers can be addictive. On a personal note, I am a Psychology undergraduate and have studied those addicted to gaming. "For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. " - http://www.csus.edu... "b) It is physically impossible to overdose on marijuana" -It is possible to overdose on any substance if enough of it is taken. Though this is extraordinarily unlikely... it is still physically possible. It would have to be concentrated in a laboratory and taken in high enough doses. "c) Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true." -I know a person whose personality had become aggressive, volatile and extremely paranoid when in a state of being without weed. He professed himself that his attitude to life had changed since taking the drug, but didn't care for his personality change. "d) The logic of the gateway theory is fundamentally flawed and therefore it cannot be true" -Please expand on your point here. "e) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. calmness, changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user (although it would be anyway)." -See my previous point on my volatile friend. And the responsibility would be always on the user, as you said, as an inanimate object cannot have responsibility, but it can be stated as the cause for issues. "f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased" -Please state how. "g) Assuming it is true that marijuana's psychoactive potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged." -Please reference this point. I have stated previously how weed can lead to an increase in aggression. "2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization. a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country" -I must state that although the government would get more money from taxes, it would not be substantial. "b)The medical benefits (known and to be known) of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for many" -In my country (The UK) it is legal to smoke weed for medicinal purposes, as I believe it is also in the US... unless I am mistaken. "c) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, reducing drugged driving)" -Legalisation would increase production and would allow adults to legally buy the drug in which they could pass it on to children for a profit, which occurs with alcohol. Increasing the access would not reduce drugged driving. "d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming cannabis for medical or recreational purposes." -It is not victimless. Currently drugs are smuggled into countries, sometimes by people who do not realise. This is far from victimless. Also, I believe medicinal weed is legal. "e)Cannabis integration would benefit our culture and uphold our rights as a nation under the constitution." -How so? "f ) Gang violence and crime revolving around marijuana will be greatly decreased." -Please say how. "g) Legalization's resulting industry would create jobs and generally benefit the national economy." -In turn I could argue that more people would waste money on buying weed as it is so easily accessible. "h) Marijuana education would be healthy for both youth and adults (because now the only education is lies unless you dig deeper)." -False. At least in the UK, we are highly educated about drugs and to know the facts. "3.Marijuana Prohibition altogether is a colossal failure. a)The whole purpose of cannabis prohibition is to prevent use nationwide, yet, cannabis use is still very prevalent." -The whole purpose of making rape illegal is to prevent rape nationwide, yet, rape is still very prevalent. Prevalence does not mean something should be legal. "b)Because of point a, the adverse societal effects of marijuana (however minuscule) are in effect despite it's prohibition, ergo prohibition is purposeless." -Please expand on this point. "c)marijuana prohibition is exactly the same as the 20's alcohol prohibition save for the failure to end it." -They are two very different drugs. It is not the same. "4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for the nation." -Making weed illegal is protecting life. "a) Proof of the government's failure to do this is how a constitutional amendment was needed to sign alcohol prohibition into law (and is now being used to prohibit marijuana). This means that the views/values this nation was built on differ from those that allow/support prohibition." -Times change = laws have to change. |
40 | c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be allowed And why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people! |
18 | 48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00004-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: "Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. " [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. "Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status." [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, "The Church of America," www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, "Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit," iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011 |
33 | 90ec04d-2019-04-18T15:31:25Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | A vegetarian diet is good for your health Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my first argument: Red meat might be rich in nutrition, but so are, for example, kale, seaweed, garlic and potatoes. Everything in meat (including Vitamin B12) can be replaced by dairy products. The loss of those is what makes vegans unhealthy, but vegetarians do not do so. Forgoing meat does not have negative effects on a vegetarian's health. Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my second argument: You said that "they pull together processed and un processed meats in the same study." But that is no problem, because it does not matter which meat is causing it, vegetarians don't eat it either way. Then you went by claiming "You cannot get correct data if you are pulling things from different types of meat." Where is your proof for that? And even if what you claim is true these four studies did not just argue that it is red meat that induces cancer, they found out that any kind of mammalian meat does so: "Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters." (Thorogood M, Mann J, Appleby P, McPherson K.: Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters; Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Eilber U.: Mortality patterns of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up; Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R.: Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians) "Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat." (Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption.)(1) It has been found out that meat does indeed have carcinogenic effects: It does not contain fibre and other nutritions that protect from cancer. It contains animal protein, saturated fat and carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) unless you do not cook it. HCAs and PAH increase cancer risk. Because meat is also very fatty it increases hormone production and thereby causes breast and prostate cancer. (1,2) Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my third argument: No, in fact, meat is not needed. All of the minerals, vitamins, fats, proteins or carbohydrates (3) the human body need can be found in dairy products or plants. For example "Soy protein has been shown to be equal to proteins of animal origin."(4) Vegetarians even absorb more calcium than non-vegetarians. Calcium is important for the nerve system and blood clotting. Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my forth argument. It is true that there have been many conflicting results on this subject. Therefore Japanese researchers did a meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials and 32 studies (with over 21,600 participants) and found out that "vegetarian diets are associated with lower blood pressure, compared with omnivorous diets."(5) This decrease in blood pressure leads to a reduction of the risk of death from coronary heart disease by 9% and of heart stroke by 14%. The same meta-analysis showed that "vegetarians generally have lower BMIs and a lower risk of obesity than omnivores, probably because vegetarian diets have higher fiber and lower fat content than omnivorous diets." Rebuttal to your arguments: As I already mentioned does meat indeed contain many nutritions, but all of those can be found in vegetarian alternatives. The carcinogenic, cholesterol level raising effects of meat consumption, though, can not be denied. The mental health disorders found among vegetarians are due to a low consumption of vitamin B12. As long as a vegetarian, just like any other person pays head to his B12 absorption there are no problems with any mental health disorders. Even a non-vegetarian can have problems with that, though. The conclusion of the study you quote is that "there was no evidence for a causal role of vegetarian diet in the etiology of mental disorders." (6) Every person, may they be vegetarian or nor, should eat carefully. I have not yet found another study, besides the one you quoted that showed that vegetarians are more likely to have allergies. Even if that is indeed the case an increase in allergies, that are only very, very rarely terminal does not in any way outweigh a decrease in the risk of cancer, obesity coronary heart diseases, a high blood pressure and heart strokes. Arguments: "The epidemiological evidence that people on plant-based have a reduced risk of chronic disease."(7) According to a study with 96,000 participants from the US and Canada vegetarians are less likely to get chronic diseases. The same study showed that the risk of renal, cardiovascular and endocrine death is "significantly lower among vegetarians." Overall vegetarians have a significantly lower mortality rate than non-vegetarians. Another study has shown that vegetarians are happier and less stressed than non-vegetarians, because "consuming a diet high in meat, fish, and poultry may negatively impact mental state". Additionally meat and poultry "raises the risk of inflammation-based chronic diseases including depression", because they are rich in fatty acids. (8,9) (1)http://www.health.harvard.edu... (2)http://www.pcrm.org... (3)http://users.rcn.com... (4)http://www.heart.org... (5)http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (6)http://www.ijbnpa.org... (7) http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com... (8) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (9) http://www.nutritionj.com... |
27 | 9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order) 1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society. You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1] 2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms. Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why. -Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1] -Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4] -Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. 4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd. Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition. 5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3] REBUTTALS 1)Rights As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale. 2)Responsibility It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation. 3)Freedom My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://gunvictimsaction.org... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net... |
33 | 2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00004-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons |
33 | 5290d330-2019-04-18T17:22:39Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | It Is Possible That A Maximally Great Being Exists The Modal Ontological Argument is one that is commonly misunderstood. Many people try to knock down the logic, and fail. People question P3 for example, but this is founded on a basic modal axiom (S5)[1]. The problem with the Modal Ontological Argument is the first premise. First of all, I would like to qualify the different types of possibility, and the possibility relevant to this debate: (i) Epistemic Possibility[2] (ii) Subjunctive Possibility (Modal Possibility)[3] To say something is epistemically possible is to say that it may be true. It might even be subjunctively impossible; we just do not know. This is how most people use the word. However, to say that something like a maximally great being for example, is subjunctively possible (which the Modal Ontological Argument necessitates) is to say that a maximally great being is definitely not impossible. Or, more precisely; it is not possible for it to be subjunctively impossible that a maximally great being exists. That is a basic modal inference. This means, for the theist to meet their burden of proof in support of the first premise, they would have to show that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist. Noone Has Shown God's Existence To Be Logically ImpossibleThis whole section from Pro is based on a fallacy called switching the burden of proof[4]. Since claiming a maximally great being is possible is equivalent to the claim that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist with regards to modal possibility, then the advocate of the Modal Ontological Argument has to show that God is not impossible; the skeptic does not have to show God is impossible. Do We Have Warrant For Accepting God's Existence As Possible? Arguments that exist for God's existence do not show that God's existence is possible. This is a non-sequitur[5]. One can argue for something that is impossible, even if the argument fails miserably, and nobody even knows that the conclusion is impossible. Both lines of argumentation from Pro are fallacious. Thus, they can be dismissed. What Pro Must Do To Establish The ResolutionAs I previously stated, for the theist to meet their burden of proof in support of the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument, they would have to show that it is not impossible for a maximally great being to exist. To do that, they would actually have to rule out that which would make a maximally great being impossible. What would make a maximally great being impossible? Lots of things. Lets just take for example non-sentient possible worlds (which include no sentient beings). They would make a maximally great being impossible because if a maximally great being is possible, there would have to be at least one sentient being in every possible world. A maximally great being cannot just exist in one possible world if a maximally great being is possible, as a maximally great being would have to exist in all of them essentially by definition if a maximally great being is possible. This follows from the modal axiom S5. Therefore, the theist would have to rule out non-sentient possible worlds before the burden of proof on the first premise is to be met. Now, the theist might be tempted to, but could not say that non-sentient worlds are impossible by asserting that "God exists in every possible world already", because that would assume that the first premise is true, which is the premise the theist is attempting to defend in the first place by trying to rule out non-sentient possible worlds! Thus, this line of refutation to my objection here would be begging the question. Now, I am not making the positive claim that the first premise is false. I have no burden to show that non-sentient worlds are indeed possible, and exist in some possible world as I am not making the assertion that this is the case. I simply assert that neutrality, or non-acceptance on the first premise is more reasonable than acceptance, which is a position I sufficiently supported as true (Pro has not shown that non-sentient worlds are impossible). This means that God's existence has not actually been established by the Modal Ontological Argument in context, as there is a huge question mark hanging over that sneaky first premise. There has to be a reason for the notion that non-sentient worlds are impossible before accepting the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument. This is due to the fact that the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument necessarily depends on non-sentient worlds being impossible. It cannot both be true that a maximally great being (a being who has necessary existence if existing in some possible world) is possible, and a possible world exists with no sentient beings. Non-sentient worlds being impossible is a required foundation of the first premise that remains as nothing more than an unjustified assumption. We are given no reason to think non-sentient worlds are impossible. Also it is in no way self-evident, or intuitively true that non-sentient worlds are impossible. There must be further external argumentation from Pro in order for him to meet his burden of proof on the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument. ConclusionMy opponent's first argument in favor of the resolution was shifting the burden of proof, and his second argument was a non-sequitur. I argued that Pro has to rule out non-sentient worlds as impossible before we should reasonably accept the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument as actually true. This is because these two statements cannot both be true:(1) There are non-sentient possible worlds(2) A Maximally Great Being exists in some possible worldSince (2) rests on the negation of (1), and Pro has not shown that (1) is false; the resolution has not been established. Sources [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.nizkor.org...[5] . http://rationalwiki.org...http://www.youtube.com... |
40 | 99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00007-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty The State should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com... On April 1, 2013 the district attorney for Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, announced that they would be seeking the death penalty for James E Holmes. Prior to this announcement, The Defense had offered to plea guilty to all charges in order to avoid the death penalty. Positions: Me: I will be arguing for this position. PRO You: Will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of plea. Format of the Debate: Round 1 Administrative Round please state the following: "I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regadless of the plea of the defendant" Round 2 Me: Opening Statement You: Opening Statement / First Rebuttal Round 3 Me: First Rebuttal / Questions to Opposing side (3 Max) You: Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max) / Answers to Questions Round 4 Me: Answers to Questions / Response to Answers You: Response to Answers / Final Arguments or Rebuttals Round 5 Me: Final Arguments or Rebuttals / Closing Statements You: Closing Statements If you have no questions simply state : "I have no questions for my opponent" Good luck! |
7 | d0870de5-2019-04-18T13:41:35Z-00007-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Children should be allowed to vote I believe that any citizen who wants to vote should be allowed to, including children who are old enough to read a candidate's name. Because the principle of a democracy is one-person-one-vote, if children are to be excluded the burden of proof rests on my opponent. Excluding children undermines democracy, because children are a social class like any other, with their own needs and interests. If they are not represented they will be exploited, and they are exploited immensely. Issues like education, adoption, foster care, after-school programs, curfew, and many more affect children more than any other group, and yet they are the only group that has no say. It is easy for adults in these fields to say they have children's best interests at heart, but they are never required to prove this is so, and they could just as easily be mistaken about what children really want and need. I will anticipate one counterargument, that children shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are ignorant. I would say that a large majority of voting adults are ignorant, and we let them vote anyway, while a good number of children are well informed and yet not allowed to vote. Furthermore, children are usually better informed on child-related topics such as education, etc. than the average adult. If we are to justify excluding children, we must have a better reason than ignorance. |
41 | 574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) "Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful."OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. "First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things."I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a "pre-paid" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. "It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring." If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. "Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit."Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you."LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment."If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank."With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car."Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects."I didn't cheat anybody. I "borrowed" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks. |
46 | 41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00002-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality. I have told you what net neutrality means two times now. I also do not have to be partisan, this is a debate for a reason. Please, actually try to have a reasonable argument in this final round, other than me being partisan or asking for the meaning. |
29 | af83a7e2-2019-04-19T12:44:04Z-00005-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Repatriate all Illegal Immigrants The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt poli... |
39 | 4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00002-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Summary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON's arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con's arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON's example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says "Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities", which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional "example" to try to sway the reader about an important question. "Will an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?"One source referenced by CON is "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!" which concludes that "The efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists." [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON's claim. Here is what they say "In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front." [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: "As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase." [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON's (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON's "rebuttals" - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card's study - CON says the study didn't show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I'm sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I'm glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I'll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald's Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states "I'll admit I'm a bit confused now."CON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON's arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com... |
3 | 839790d7-2019-04-18T12:31:47Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Free Trade I am challenging the user "MehItsaName" to a debate on free trade. Rules of Debate:1) Burden of proof will be shared equally.2) If con chooses to post arguments in round 1, they should waive round 4 to keep the rounds used for debate even since I am not using round 1 for debate.3) The first round for debate should not include any rebuttals against your opponent's arguments. It is just for your own arguments. This would only apply to the person who posts their main arguments second, of course.4) The second round of debate can include new arguments and/or rebuttals against your opponent's main arguments5) The third round should only be rebuttals against your opponent's arguments, and/or defense against your opponent's rebuttals. 6) No personal insults, attacks, or ad hominemIf any of the above rules are violated, voters should award the point for conduct to the person who did not violate these rules, or who did so to a lesser extent.If con objects to any of the above rules, they should say so in comments, and I may tweak some of them, otherwise it will be assumed they agree to them.Definition:Free Trade: "a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries."[1]Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
24 | f1166b5e-2019-04-18T18:31:24Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies. It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul's economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama's economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I'll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School. Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble's collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well. Keynesian School: Interventionist "economics" that stems from John Maynard Keynes' views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal)[4], economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking[5]. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, "Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine. " That's because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is[6]. Ron Paul thinks the government's role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth. Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It's much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business' profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences. Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama's socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and "stimulus," Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world. Conclusion: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. [6]Barack Obama has tripled the national debt, increased regulations, and made it more difficult to start a business in the United States while contributing to inflation/dollar devaluation. [7][1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] . http://paulitifact.com...[3] . http://www.mymoneycalculator.com.au...[4] . http://truthandliberty.com...[5] . http://www.tommullen.net...[6] . http://www.ronpaul2012.com...[7] . http://blog.heritage.org... |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00008-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned |
28 | 7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal in all countries! This is my first debate. It's obvious I made an error in choosing my opponent. How regrettable. I believe this is where I state: Arguments extended to next round. |
7 | 7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. "The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America."(1)"5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. "(1) "State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored."(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested. |
19 | 415c5843-2019-04-18T19:41:38Z-00007-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal First, let me say that I am only interested in debating those who are willing to devote sufficient time to complete this debate. If you think you might not be able to post your arguments within the allotted time, please don't bother. I will argue that gay marriage, the legal union between a same sex couple, should be allowed. Let me state that I also believe that "civil unions" exclusive to homosexual couples are not sufficient. The term "civil union" should either replace "marriage" entirely for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in terms of the actual legal contract (leaving marriage as a religious and philosophical term only), or the term "marriage" should be used for all. My first argument can be given in the form of a syllogism: 1. A man has the right to marry a woman. A woman has the right to marry a man. 2. Men and women should have equal rights. 3. Therefore, men should have the same right to marry men as women do and women should have the same right to marry women as men do. The second argument I will give here is a little more in depth. I believe that the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law against gay marriage. The 1st section 14th amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws against gay marriage clearly "abridge the privileges" of certain citizens. More specifically, that privilege is marriage and those citizens are those men and women who wish to marry those of the same sex. I have several other arguments, but I will first allow my opponent to speak. |
13 | 3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00004-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | fossil fuel Since the topic is unclear, I'd like to interpret the topic to be: "the world should stop using fossil fuel." My opponent is pro and I am con, so this topic interpretation makes sense. 1. No alternative We need gasoline for the foreseeable future. Most people who currently own cars in the world own a car that runs primarily on gasoline. Cars are expensive products and most people are not too keen on purchasing a new one right now, considering the global recession. Other options are not viable anyway. Ethanol Normal cars can run on a blend of ethanol/gasoline, but ethanol cannot comprise more than 15% of the concoction, or else it will corrode the engine parts. In addition, ethanol does not yield a net positive amount of energy because it takes gasoline to create the fertilizer used to grow the crop (usually corn) and to harvest it (picture tractors). "UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains." [1] So it essentially takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. In addition, we don't have enough crops in the world to turn into ethanol. According to Energy Bullet, "if the entire US corn crop were used for fuel, it would only replace 20 percent of US gasoline consumption." [2] Lastly, food to fuel increases world food prices and results in starvation. Environment News Service explains, "The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before. The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. . . . The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off." [3] Cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable and may never be because the enzymes to break down cellulose are far too expensive to produce. Electric Since 80% of power that is generated in the United States is from fossil fuel (coal and natural gas), if we stop using fossil fuels, we won't be able to charge our cars. Electric cars are also much more expensive than normal cars and cannot travel very far on a single charge. Hydrogen fuel cell The fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Prototypes running solely on fuel cells have not even been made. There are no refilling stations. Hydrogen is not energy-dense enough to be a viable transportation fuel because the fuel tank would be too heavy. Power 80% of U.S. power comes from coal and natural gas. Less than 1% comes from solar and wind. Around 20% comes from nuclear power. However, the nuclear plants in the U.S. are approaching the end of their life cycles, meaning we will rely more on fossil fuels in the future. Solar and wind are not yet viable to provide all our energy because they rely on intermittent energy sources (wind is not always blowing, sun is not always shining), and we do not have a reliable way to store the energy, meaning we need fossil fuels to act as a back-up for power generation if these intermittent sources are not available. The Energy Information Agency did projection forecasts on alternative energy development to 2030, based on current incentives/tax breaks and rates of investment, and found that in the best case scenario, renewable energy can provide 10% of the United State's energy needs by 2030. [4] If we stopped using fossil fuels now, the global economy would come to a standstill. 2. Clean fossil fuels Clean diesel cars have been manufactured that emit absolutely no particulates from their tailpipes, such as a model highly touted by Volkswagen. In addition, carbon capture and sequestration promises to create coal power plants that no longer emit any carbon dioxide. 3. World economy Fossil fuel jobs employ tens of millions of people worldwide in the oil exploration/drilling industry, the coal mining industry, and in electricity generation. These people would all lose their jobs. Oil/natural gas exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia would have their economies devastated if they could not sell fossil fuels. A collapse of demand in many fossil fuel exporting-dependent countries would further exacerbate the global recession. Responding to my opponent's case: 1. Ozone layer holes Most of the holes in the ozone layer were caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which international agreements have since banned. Science Daily reports that currently, one of the most promising new ways to decrease ozone depletion is newly discovered devices to detect rogue CFC emissions. [5] There are two ways that fossil fuels directly decrease ozone, but both ways only have a "weak" effect on ozone. [6] 2. Global warming Many countries are attempting to implement emissions reduction strategies, but these will likely be very expensive to consumers of energy and will have only a marginal impact on global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation's consortium of the smartest scientists on the global warming issue across the world, recently ranked the best solutions to global warming, and a number of geo-engineering projects (engineering projects that would cool the globe) were ranked higher than emissions reduction. Solutions include the one described in Super-Freakonomics, essentially simulating a volcanic burst in the troposphere, during which particles decrease sunlight penetration to the Earth's surface and decrease atmospheric temperature, and putting sunlight shields in outer space. No matter how costly these engineering solutions are, they will be cheaper and more effective than drastic emissions reduction programs, like cap and trade. In addition, some of the renewable energy solutions aren't much better for global warming. Stanford University published a study in 2007 on the ways that shifting to a hydrogen economy would increase global warming. [7] 3. Peak oil Many different experts disagree on the date when peak oil production will occur, but few experts still believe that it will be as soon as 2020, as my opponent suggests. In fact, the Energy Information Agency recently did projections until 2035 and found that due to technology improvements, peak oil will not occur between now and then. [8] One such improvement is EOR – enhanced oil recovery. Carbon dioxide (usually captured from a coal power plant using carbon capture and sequestration) is pumped into oil wells and makes the yields of oil from the well jump from 20-40% (under traditional techniques) to 40-60% by increasing the pressure inside the well-head and forcing more oil to come out. We need oil for the foreseeable future – alternatives are just not available yet on a large enough scale and are not yet affordable for the average person. [1] http://www.sfgate.com... [2] http://www.energybulletin.net... [3] http://www.ens-newswire.com... [4] http://news.mongabay.com... [5] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [6] http://wiki.answers.com... [7] http://gcep.stanford.edu... [8] http://www.altenergystocks.com... |
23 | 719de2fd-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Abortion is MURDER! Thank you for your rebuttals, and I applaud you on staying away from my strengths in the art of debating, and identifying them before the debate. I will now first like to defeat any religious arguments on this debate with this fact: Although the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). [1] This fact would defeat any religious arguments because it states that religious churches, do not actually oppose legalizing abortion. Now that I have defeated any religious arguments I would now like to move on to rebuttals. I"m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn"t a life, as that"s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I"ll be brief. A fetus can"t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn"t imply a right to use somebody else"s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else"s life. The "right to life" also doesn"t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else"s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? In your rebuttals you stated that you would rather have a child alive and in an orphanage. This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn"t the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34. Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies " not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn"t address all of them. Now I will move on to my constructive speech. A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). [2] The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion.[3] The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. [4] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [5] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [6] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [7] [8] Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. [9] It is for the reasons that I have stated above, and in my previous speech that I would encourage a vote against the resolution. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals and speech in the next round. Below you will see a list of the resources that I have used to write my rebuttals and speech. Thank you for your time. Resources: [1]Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org, June 2008 [2]E.G. Raymond and D.A. Grimes, "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feb. 2012 [3]American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Medical Association, "Brief of Amici Curiae [in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services et al. v. Attorney General Gregory Abbot et al.]," acog.org, Dec. 19, 2013 [4]Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973 [5]Corinne H. Rocca, Katrina Kimport, et al., "Women's Emotions One Week after Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Sep. 2013 [6]Susan A. Cohen, "Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women"s Risk of Mental Health Problems," Guttmacher Policy Review, Spring 2013 [7]Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014) [8]Annalee Newitz, "What Happens to Women Denied Abortions? This Is the First Scientific Study to Find Out," io9.com, Nov. 13, 2012 [9]John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005) |
16 | 61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00001-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Advertisements do more harm than good 1) Television is greatly abused for commercial purposes and other types of uses, in which audiences are constantly sold to: Advertisers try to convince the audience that the solution to a problem or the fulfilment of a desire can only be achieved through the purchase of a product. It is designed towards blind acceptance by the viewer. In this way TV negatively affects the human mind, by limiting the possibilities of conscious choice, and promotes a consumer society. It can be also misused to urge people to buy even things they do not need by subliminal advertising. 2)People spend the biggest part of their time view advetisments : According to the statistics, the average American child watches 262 views ads per week. That's how ads reduce the quality of real life by narrowing people's outlook, limiting the variety of free time activities, affecting family relations by reducing conversation, and even having an impact on health by discouraging exercise. ""Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 PM, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children." Television Children and adolescents view 400 00 ads per year on TV alone.13 This occurs despite the fact that the Children's Television Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101–437) limits advertising on children's programming to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends and 12 minutes/hour on weekdays. However, much of children's viewing occurs during prime time, which features nearly 16 minutes/hour of advertising.14 A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl now costs $2.3 million but reaches 80 million people.15 Movies A 2000 FTC investigation found that violent movies, music, and video games have been intentionally marketed to children and adolescents.16 Although movie theaters have agreed not to show trailers for R-rated movies before G-rated movies in response to the release of the FTC report, children continue to see advertising for violent media in other venues. For instance, M-rated video games, which according to the gaming industry's own rating system are not recommended for children younger than 17 years, are frequently advertised in movie theaters, video game magazines, and publications with high youth readership.17 Also, movies targeted at children often prominently feature brand-name products and fast food restaurants.18 In 1997–1998, 8 alcohol companies placed products in 233 motion pictures and in 1 episode or more of 181 TV series.18 Print Media According to the Consumer's Union,19 more than 160 magazines are now targeted at children. Young people see 45% more beer ads and 27% more ads for hard liquor in teen magazines than adults do in their magazines.20 Despite the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, tobacco advertising expenditures in 38 youth-oriented magazines amounted to $217 million in 2000.21 The Internet An increasing number of Web sites try to entice children and teenagers to make direct sales. Teenagers account for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars,22 and the industry spent $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002.23 More than 100 commercial Web sites promote alcohol products.23 The content of these sites varies widely, from little more than basic brand information to chat rooms, "virtual bars," drink recipes, games, contests, and merchandise catalogues. Many of these sites use slick promotional techniques to target young people.23,24 In 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Pub L No. 105–277) was passed, which mandates that commercial Web sites cannot knowingly collect information from children younger than 13 years. These sites are required to provide notice on the site to parents about their collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information and must obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using, or disclosing this information.25 MARKETING TECHNIQUES Advertisers have traditionally used techniques to which children and adolescents are more susceptible, such as product placements in movies and TV shows,26 tie-ins between movies and fast food restaurants,18 tie-ins between TV shows and toy action figures or other products,7 kids' clubs that are linked to popular shows, and celebrity endorsements.27 Cellular phones are currently being marketed to 6- to 12-year-olds, with the potential for directing specific advertisers to children and preteens. Coca-Cola reportedly paid Warner Bros. Studios $150 million for the global marketing rights to the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,"28 and nearly 20% of fast food restaurant ads now mention a toy premium in their ads.29 Certain tie-in products may be inappropriate for children (eg, action figures from the World Wrestling Federation or an action doll that mutters profanities from an R-rated Austin Powers movie). Children's advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which will be in place before 2010. In the near future, children watching a TV program will be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program.30 Interactive games and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology may also allow advertisers to collect vast amounts of information about children's viewing habits and preferences and target them on the basis of that information.31 SPECIFIC HEALTH-RELATED AREAS OF CONCERN Tobacco Advertising Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million/day ($11.2 billion/year) on advertising and promotion.32 Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having family members and peers who smoke33 and can even undermine the effect of strong parenting practices.34 Two unique and large longitudinal studies have found that approximately one third of all adolescent smoking can be attributed to tobacco advertising and promotions.35,36 In addition, more than 20 studies have found that children exposed to cigarette ads or promotions are more likely to become smokers themselves.37,38 Recent evidence has emerged that tobacco companies have specifically targeted teenagers as young as 13 years of age.39 Alcohol Advertising Alcohol manufacturers spend $5.7 billion/year on advertising and promotion.40 Young people typically view 2000 beer and wine commercials annually,41 with most of the ads concentrated in sports programming. During prime time, only 1 alcohol ad appears every 4 hours; yet, in sports programming, the frequency increases to 2.4 ads per hour.42,43 Research has found that adolescent drinkers are more likely to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.44–50 Given that children begin making decisions about alcohol at an early age—probably during grade school50—exposure to beer commercials represents a significant risk factor.46,50 Minority children may be at particular risk.51"" relevant website: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... bam! vote for me |
15 | 638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00001-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Testing on animals is wrong! I have to admit that even though I am against animal testing, you have proven a very strong point. Animal testing is mainly the reason for all of the modern medical vaccines and such that we have today. Although, I believe that testing on animals for those reasons may be alright, I think it is just wrong to use them to test cosmetics (even if I am a girl). I hate putting animals through that sort of torture just so that supermodels can make themselves look 'pretty'. Thank you. |
36 | 8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf "The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. " 450 holes looks meager compared to the number of serves that would have to happen to win a Ping Pong tournament, "winning consistently". 21 points= 1 game 7 games= 1match there are 3 matches in a round. And if it is a double elimination like some are, 48 rounds would be played to find a grand champion. So lets figure this up. There are 441 points in a round times 48 rounds, equals 21,168 serves in all. A serve would be compared to teeing off, in golf. This would make ping pong harder to "consistently win" at. "The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including "paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. " My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. " This is true but the variables do not out weigh the win factor if it is 450 holes to 21,168 serves. Variables can not affect a game by that much it is physically impossible. the variables would have to make up 20,718 holes. "My opponent asks " Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? ", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I concede to this statement. . http://tabletennis.about.com... . http://www.ehow.com... " It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. " Ping pong balls are hit from farther away than one yard see the video (also notice the movement of the players, if I have enough room I will get back to that). I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much. "My opponent argues that "It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any "general vicinity". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. " Firstly I am aware of the magnificent shot of tiger woods and also I know that he is not the only person to do so, but the thing is that this ideal shot happens almost never it is a rarity of golf. Secondly the distance you have to hit a golf ball (on some holes) to get it in the hole is above human capability. "My opponent also argues that "the distance is irrelevant. ", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. " this comment is not true and I will agree that what I said is incorrect. Stating that, I would like to mention that this "incredible accuracy" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved. The conditions or the variables where just right to help this next to impossible shot. "My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. " This incorrect math is not really incorrect. The miss understanding is partially my fault for these reasons. 1) I said "F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong" this was in correct. 2) the first reason it was in correct is that I did not mention m/s2 as the unit. 3) The mass of the object was for the paddles and clubs, I took the average weight of each (using the same unit of weight(grams)) I multiplied this by the acceleration (both using the same standard unit (m/s2)) the reason my opponent is confused is that I said "this is for a golf ball" when it should have read this is for a golf club. I then put this in unit converter/force formula (. http://www.ajdesigner.com...) and I got 8.97 newtons for the golf club and 144.375 for the Ping Pong paddle. "I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are "the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared"(2)This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. " I put this in the formula converter and it takes care of converting. it was not a decimal error and I am going to do A golf ball compared to a pong ball right now A PONG BALL WEIGHTS 2.7 GRAMS AND THE ACCELERATION IS 1.875 M/S2 THIS EQUALS FORCE = 0.0050625 NEWTONS NOW A GOLF BALL 45.93 GRAMS X ACCELERATION WHICH IS 78 M/S2 =3.58254 NEWTONS a golf ball has more force when hit than a ping pong ball but the ball is not stressing the body physically but the swing of the paddle/club is so this proves that ping pong is more physically stressful to the body. . http://answers.yahoo.com... to address the hunting issue first ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait,like an arrow, they curve so a deer running is harder to hit because you must have the ball come down on the deer Pote I've enjoyed |
48 | bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00013-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Youth are not represented in politics This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired? |
39 | 6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be increased But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: "Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district." This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: "The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix " at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California." (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org... |
42 | 9de8e3b-2019-04-18T19:57:30Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Abortion should be allowed Again, I will begin by responding to your arguments: 1)The ANNUAL figure for abortions has been above 1.5 million since the 80's. Simple math shows that the number of abortions in the past 20 years is indeed on the same magnitude as Stalin and Hitler. You claim that Hitler and Stalin killed "Actual living and breathing people." Please note that my comparison was conditional. The comparison stands only if fetuses have the right to life, and my position is that a fetus is an "actual" person. On a related note, your comment that the people killed by Hitler and Stalin could "actually feel…pain" does not impact this debate unless you can show how those characteristics are morally relevant and affect whether or not the fetus has a right to life. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that a fetus DOES feel pain. It is certainly able to react to stimuli. 2) Your argument equates to saying "it is justified to murder someone if they don't have a good life." There is no way to know whether or not a fetus will have a future. I contend that no person has the right to take away the future of another thing. No one has the authority to deem another person's future worthless. I would also like to point out that you have not offered any way to quantify the number of abortions that are carried out by mothers who would be unable to support a child. There is no way to quantify how many of these abortions fit into this category. The point remains however, that even if it is true that many abortions (this is something you have NOT demonstrated) involve a mother or household that would be inappropriate for a child that does not legitimize stealing a thing's future. I will point out that you did not address my analysis in my offense argument #3. You did not address my point that: i)A fetus is potentially a full grown human and there is no difference in the relation between a fetus and adult and a toddler and an adult ii)Depriving a thing of a future like ours is ethically equivalent to murder iii)YOU must provide a morally relevant difference between a fetus and an adult if you are going to claim a moral difference like the absence of a right to life. By ignoring these points, you have functionally conceded them in this debate. YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A MORALLY RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FETUS AND A FULL GROWN PERSON. This means that you cannot claim that a fetus does not have a right to life! This point remains uncontested in this debate. 3) You ignore all my analysis on the way rights conflict and the necessity of weighing rights. You did not explain how rights in conflict should be evaluated or how they relate to this issue. I am winning on this point because you have not responded to my points. You are merely parroting that a woman has a right to her body, which is something I agree with. My point is that a fetus also has a right to life and abortion is a point where rights conflict. Again, you have not provided any response to my points. 4) I admit that choices are good things. However, some things we should not have a choice over. For instance, we should not have the choice to steal. We should not have the choice to lie in court. We should not have the choice to throw large rocks at random passer-bys. The question of abortion is not "are choices good?" but is rather "is this something people should have a choice about?" Now I would like to restate my points that my opponent has not addressed and has thus functionally conceded: 1)Rights conflict and we must engage in a critical analysis about how to deal with conflicting rights. Abortion is an instance where this is the case. This means it is not enough to just say, "a woman has a right to her body" because there are other rights that conflict. 2)Abortion is not simply a matter of personal choice because it is an issue of justice. Protection of rights is an issue that requires involvement of third parties. The fact that multiple people's rights are in conflict means that it is an issue of justice. 3)The issue of a child being wanted is not relevant in the face of a right to life. The only relevant issues are the rights involved. 4)You have effectively conceded the back alley abortion issue. Reference my R1 to see why my opponent loses on this issue. He has made no rebuttal to my points. 5)Right to life outweighs privacy. My opponent did not dispute this. Life is the most valuable thing a person can have and thus life is the ultimate right. The right to life presupposes other rights and so trumps other rights. 6)We should err on the side of caution. My opponent never disputed my analysis here or any of my claims. He only disputed the issue of the magnitude of abortion. All my other claims stand. The magnitude of the evil of abortion if the fetus has a right to life overwhelms the possibility that abortion is ethically acceptable. On this point alone I have won this debate. 7)A fetus has a right to life. Again, my opponent didn't dispute, blah, blah…. The point is, my opponent has dropped nearly all my points including the most important one, whether a fetus has a right to life. For these reasons I am winning the debate. PLEASE VOTERS, BE NEUTRAL IN VOTING ON THIS DEBATE!!!! |
17 | 823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. IntroductionMy opponent believes I have misunderstand his first argument. This is not the case. The idea of making sure a drug is "safe and effective" in order to legalize it clearly pertains to medical marijuana. The FDA has allowed both alcohol and cigarettes which are less safe in comparison to marijuana (and certainly not effective in anyway). Even if this idea of safety and effectiveness does include recreational marijuana, my opponent's argument basically states that we can't make cannabis legal because under the status quo of the FDA, meaning it should stay illegal. This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate. Moreover, throughout my constructive, I have shown that marijuana is a less harmful drug when compared to currently legal drugs.I will now look at each of my opponent's attacks on my constructive case...C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Psychotic Symptoms: My opponent begins by attacking my argument in which people diagnosed with schizophrenia were positively impacted by medical marijuana by saying that this debate (as I confirmed) is over recreational marijuana. This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive. I was mainly using that point to debunk the common misconception that marijuana worsens mental conditions.Mental Degradation: For this point, I had made a claim that explained the use of cannabis does not result in the loss of brain cells. My opponent attacks my source by explaining that it is outdated and the studies are not linked. The truth is, that it is difficult to find studies on marijuana / brain cell count because many regular users are unwilling to participate for fear of being caught. This point doesn't carry much weight in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address my opponents claims that state rats have lost brain cells from marijuana. The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (a documentary) explains that in such tests, animals are given an abnormal amount of marijuana; more than any human could possibly consume in such a short period of time. As with such a dose of most things, a test subject would be expected to lose brain cells (1).Marijuana as a Tobacco Substitute: For starters, I will note that the sample size for the study that proved marijuana as an effective substitute for tobacco was small. However, this does not prove the experiment to be invalid. As I have said earlier (on both sides of the argument) there is going to be an inevitable lack of evidence simply because marijuana is studied significantly less than one would expect. My opponent essentially explains that unless I can show that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive impact. The thing is, I have shown this through my constructive. As my fourth source has shown, smoking marijuana can increase lung capacity. Lets take another quick look at how marijuana compares to tobacco: USCF notes, "Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to marijuana up to a certain level (2)." As I've said before, smoking weed is not exactly *good* for one's lungs. However, it is preferable to smoking tobacco. Take a look at source two for more. Effect on Bystanders: This point was basically dropped. All my opponent did here is call out a quote from my source: "However I would like to quote the source "Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not." Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high. The argument is that the degree of impairment is significantly less to that of a drunk driver. Remember, with legalization lives are saved through this odd benefit. In Colorado alone, we see that there are 3,000 less car crash fatalities each year.C2) Unnecessary ArrestMy opponent explains that from *his* stand point, this position is irrelevant. This actually isn't quite the case. My opponent has provided no actual evidence that proved that keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial. All he has done is argue that by the standards of the FDA, it should be kept illegal. Since my opponent has provided zero evidence as to why keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial to society, there is no reason that this shouldn't be considered. I am not arguing that the state doesn't have a legal right to make such arrests; obviously, they do. This argument is more of a moral one. It is against the common good to ruin someone's life through an arrest for a victimless "crime." Also, (I'll get more into this on the money point) taxpayers pay a huge amount of money to keep these prisoners in jail.C3) Money and the EconomyMy first point went dropped by my opponent. This is definitely my most important point in this category. American taxpayers are paying around 1 billion every year to keep cannabis prisoners in jail. As I explained, the prohibition of pot has now become unfair to not only the consumer, but to the taxpayer as well. In reality, the only person that benefits when it comes to money is the drug dealers. In the words of my adversary, "Legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong." That is, of course, not the main motivation behind legalizing marijuana. There are many practical reasons to legalize cannabis and that is just one of them. He continues, "the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people." The problem with that statement is, my opponent has done nothing to prove that legalizing cannabis hurts the common good. All he has argued is that it is within the status quo of the FDA to keep marijuana illegal. This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs.C4) Safer CannabisMy opponent has basically conceded to this point. Through legalization of marijuana, we will ultimately obtain safer cannabis. The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs. Note that alcohol and tobacco are regulated (and also more harmful than cannabis).ConclusionI have proved throughout the debate that marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons. As I said earlier on, even if it were harmful, that does not change the fact that though the legalization of marijuana:1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless "crimes."2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.3. The economy will thrive.4. Cannabis will be safer.The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good.1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents).Therefore, I firmly believe we should legalize cannabis. Thanks to con for such an interesting debate.Vote Pro!!(1) The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (Movie Website: http://www.theunionmovie.com...)(2) http://www.ucsf.edu... |
45 | 6d529cb1-2019-04-18T16:23:08Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | "God Bless America Should stay on our Money Alright now to refute. I will use a big font also as not to confuse the reader.You bring up the fact that the united states of america was founded mainly by christain pilgrims. They came and joined forces with a native american tribe to overthrow a different one. They later regrouped and had a feast. SO. Before pilgrims were in america there where native americans as discoverd by coloumbus. Theses tribes were polytheistic and did not have just one god. If they had paper money it would say "in GOD'S we trust." But, Christian pilgrims came to america instead. They overthrew the native americans and adopted christian ideals. SO, is this why we should have in god we trust on our money? The awnser is a solid NO. You talk about a christian god that we trust in. Your reasonign for that is due to a majority of christians in america. It would of been acceptable for early americans becuase they were all christians but Now america is full of different people.you forget that things have changed now. We have a right to freedom of religion and a seperation between church and state. America is full of jew's, Christains, and many other religions. Money issued by the government should not have religious meaning attached to them. You might say it honors the lands history. If it does it then should say In gods we trust on our money becuase of the native american people who lived here. |
44 | 7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00004-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the "beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++"His "accomplishments" was nothing more but a failed journey"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse "from sea to shining sea" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates "genocide and imperialism."++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
47 | abf51b1d-2019-04-18T14:54:53Z-00005-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be banned Good Luck, |
8 | 6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal I was writing such a huge block of text, but then I saw your 4th paragraph and decided I am incorrect. Thank you for changing my opinion, I forfeit. |
10 | 6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00006-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. As he as not specified a structure for the debate, I'll do my best to do so in a fair and common manner. Round 1: Con's CaseRound 2: Pro's Case, Con's RebuttalsRound 3: Pro's Rebuttals, Con's Defense & RebuttalsRound 4: Pro's Defense & Rebuttals Con's Closing StatementsRound 5: Pro's Closing Statements, Con (ends debate)With that in mind, I'd like to move to some housekeeping, particularly in regards to the resolution. The resolution is quite wordy and slightly incoherent. I'll try to reword the definition in a manner that both preserves the context and intent of the instigator but that also is more coherent and effective. Hopefully my opponent will agree to the stipulations, as the implications of the two resolutions are quite frankly the same. Resolved: Religious exemption of necessary vaccinations should be permitted. As Con, my opponent, the instigator is negating this notion, arguing that there shouldn't be exemptions for vaccinations based on religious beliefs. As Pro, I will be arguing the converse; that religious exemption should be accepted and permitted. The burden of proof, or BoP, will rest primarily upon Pro to affirm the resolution and exemplify why a change to the status quo (e. g. disallowing religious exemptions) is better than allowing it. My primary duty will be to negate these arguments. However, for the sake of balancing the BoP, I will also provide a case of my own, open to scrutiny by my opponent, to give a more equal balance to the BoP in the debate. Definitions:Vaccinate: "medical : to give (a person or an animal) a vaccine to prevent infection by a disease" [1]Religious exemption: "The religious exemption is granted based on the U. S. Constitution First Amendment right to freely hold and exercise religious beliefs. " [2]Necessary: "absolutely needed"With those items out of the way, I will present my case. Observations:I would like to note that my opponent has used the word necessary to define the vaccinations of which he/she believes should be utilized regardless of religion. It is imperative to realize that my opponent has not stipulated how this word should be interpreted. As it is highly subjective, it is quite difficult to perceive exactly what my opponent intended. However, for the purpose of this debate (and that my opponent mentioned parents), we will simplify this word to mean the following: any vaccination *required* to attend a public school. This focuses the resolution towards children and more definitively interprets necessary. Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted. In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4] [5]A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now. Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted. Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs. It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom. Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, "the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights. " [11]Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option. Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe. Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or "adverse effects. " [12] Moreover, the link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption. Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption. Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base "religion" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, "You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church. " [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption. Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health. Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim. Conclusion:I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively affirming it. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.nvic.org...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.ncsl.org...[5] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[6] . http://www.themodernreligion.com...[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://nypost.com...[9] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[10] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[11] . http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...[12] . http://www.hrsa.gov...[13] . http://www.theguardian.com...[14] . http://www.chicagotribune.com... |
28 | a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should Be Legal 1. The Nordic Approach The Swedish Law punishes those who buy the sex, and not those who were bought. I thought that was pretty straightforward. The Nordic approach has been found to be highly successful, reducing prostitution usage, violence, and trafficking. Other pro-prostitution laws have had the opposite effect, increasing violence (or having no effect) but often increasing trafficking [1]. 2. Consensual sex Often, something being consensual is an illusion. Research studying 9 countries (some of which where prostitution was legal) 89% of prostitutes say they have been forced to be a prostitute, whether it be through coercion or trickery. Further, the amount of trafficking for prostitutes in New Zealand have increased since prostitution decriminalization, presumably increasing the amount of forced prostitutes [1]. The amount of "consensual" sex in the prostitution business is fairly low. However, what about that 11%? Merely because something is consensual does not make it correct. A gladiator fight, for example, is consensual, but that does not mean the state should let people do what they want with their bodies. 3. Black Markets Everyone agrees you can't end prostitution; however my opponent assumes legalization will reduce the amount of black markets (and violence) if prostitution was legalized. However, this is simply not the case. The Swedish experience clearly shows reduced violence, coercion, and increases safety by increasing the controls on prostitution [2]. Further, we need to decipher what is intrinsic to all prostitution, and what is not. For example, Farley and Kelly write that violence is, "intrinsic to prostitution."[3] As violence is intrinsic to prostitution, even when legal, the question is how to best curb some of this violence. Legalization in New Zealand has increased abuse in brothels. What is also interesting is that in Auckland there was a 200-400% increase in street prostitutes (in other words, illegal prostitutes [1]). Although it seems intuitive that legalization would decrease violence and illegal trafficking and black markets, it is shown that the opposite occurs every time. Even in counties in Nevada where prostitution is legal, traffickers often ask to buy the brothels (and it is often answered with a "sure"[1]). My opponent and I agree that helping these women is paramount, but the literature indicates legalization is the worst thing to do when attempting to curb black markets, or increase safety. 4. The victimless crime The largest victim in this case is the prostitute, as noted often coerced into the business. Legalization increases the amount of street prostitutes. Now, illegal prostitutes are raped about 55 times a year and legal prostitutes 33 times a year. I would say that's about the same, as one rape is unacceptable. Now to further explain the data: it seems, number wise, legalization would then reduce the rapes! No, as legalization increases the 55 times a year side, and not to mention the trafficking increases. The fact legalization leads to prostitutes being victims, and increased violence, the biggest victims are those coerced into the business [4]. I can name a few victims, actually. (1) the prostitute, (2) those affected by increased trafficking, and (3) those affected by the increase in street prostitutes after legalization. 5. Safer and efficient It is fairly obvious the harms of prostitution are intrinsic, and are often worsened by legalization. I have demonstrated a strong anti-prostitution law (Sweden, 1997) is the most effective in increasing public awareness and safety about prostitution. Efficient is irrelevant, as any sane person does not want a harmful practice to be efficient. Increasing the money in the business merely increases the harms to society. 1. Melissa Farley. "Theory versus reality: Commentary on four articles about trafficking for prostitution." Women's Studies International Forum, (2009). 2. Max Waltman. "Prohibiting Sex Purchasing and Ending Trafficking: The Swedish Prostitution Law." Michigan Journal of International Law, Volume 33 issue 133, (2011). 3. Melissa Farley, Vanessa Kelley. "Prostitution: a critical review of the medical and social science literature." Women and Criminal Justice, (2000). 4. http://crime.about.com... |
45 | d97ac212-2019-04-18T17:17:27Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound Definition Of Begins To Exist"it means that at a moment in time something did not exist, and later it came into existence." - ProHowever, what if the first state of the universe was the first moment of time itself? This means, there couldn't have been a time before that in which the universe was non-existent. Thus, the universe did not begin to exist under this very definition. If Pro wants to use this definition, then he must show that there was a "prior" to the universe at which the universe = out of being. This has not been accomplished. For all we know, the first state of the universe was the first moment of time itself (making a "temporally prior" to that logically impossible). Since Pro did not rule this possibility out, then by this definition; the beginning of the existence of the universe has not been established.B-Theory"The B-Theory as explained by Con proposes that the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block that simply exists tenselessly. It serves no purpose, goes through no changes of any kind, and ironically "emerges" in a completed state." - ProThe above is incoherent. A B-Theory universe doesn't "emerge", a B-Theory universe just exists tenselessly eternally. My opponent then goes on to say:"Now, I ask a simple question... if the universe itself has no cause, and did not begin to exist, can anything within the universe have a cause or begin to exist? No. You see, if the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block, that was not caused and did not begin to exist... then it logically follows that no aspect or part of that block could have been caused or begun to exist either. Why? Because if the universe existed in a complete state from its starting point, then no part of it went through a process of becoming and no part of it was caused." - ProThe above is correct. However, this undermines B-Theory none. B-Theory acknowledges that change and causality as we know it do not ontologically exist; they are just illusions of consciousness. Pro has not shown why this is a problem. "A finite past would suggest that the universe is inside something in the same way that we are inside the universe." - ProPro has not shown how a finite past suggests anything of the sort. Therefore, this remains a bare-assertion, and can be dismissed. Why couldn't the universe just be self-existent and self-explanatory, without needed to be inside anything?My opponent did not even come close to undermining B-Theory. Pro also completely ignores my scientific argument in favor of it in the last round. Since B-Theory remains unscathed by Pro's objections; it stands. Thus, I have shown the universe probably did not begin to exist indirectly. A Finite Past =/= A Coming Into Being"I appreciate the pictures Con has provided to "prove" how the universe didn't come into being" - ProThe above is a straw-man. The pictures don't "prove" the universe did not come into being. The pictures show that a universe can have a finite past, but not come into being. Thus, more has to be established than a finite past before we can say the universe began to exist. Pro completely misses the entire point of the diagram. "There is self-evidently no logical or metaphysical link requiring that a house with a finite past, comes into being necessarily." - ProThe above is absolutely correct. We know that the house began to exist, because before the first state of the house, the house did not exist. However, the universe as a whole is different because there is no reason to think there even is a "before" the universe. Regardless, this is fallacy of composition from Pro. Even if everything inside the universe that has a finite past, began to exist; it wouldn't follow that if the universe as a whole has a finite past, that it began to exist. "It seems therefore that it is indeed self-evident that something with a finite past, comes into being." - Pro It is only self-evident that parts of the universe that have a finite past, come into being. It is not obvious for the universe as a whole. This, once more, is a fallacy of composition from Pro. Since Pro's argument here is based on an elementary logical fallacy; it can be discounted."Well... if it does not mean that the universe came into being... then does it mean that the universe did not come into being?" - ProThe above is a logical fallacy known as a false-dichotomy. A third option would be; it means that we can't determine whether the universe came into being or not, strictly off of the basis of a finite past. Remember that Pro has the burden of proof. Pro's ArgumentsPro said that I did not address his arguments, when I did address them sufficiently. He argued that particles served as a seed for the universe. I showed in my last round that this entails a logical contradiction. Particles are an inherent part of the universe. It is logically incoherent for a part of the universe, to be a seed for the whole of the universe to exist. Thus, the idea that particles served as an ingredient to the universe makes no sense at all. Since Pro did not respond to this in his last round, I find it ironic that he talks about me not addressing his arguments. Pro is the one not addressing arguments."Just because a cause is not known, does not mean that it is not there. Yet this is exactly what Con proposes." - ProIt is not that a cause is unknown, it is that there are no causes of certain quantum events at all. In order for virtual particles to be sufficiently caused for example, there would have to be "hidden variables" that we do not know about (which my opponent is alluding to). This requires a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, local hidden variables have been ruled out by Bell's inequalities [1], and non-local hidden variables have been ruled out by Leggett's inequalities[2]. Thus, it is not that no cause is known; scientifically, there can be no sufficient cause of certain quantum events. Pro has not shown that something beginning to exist without a sufficient cause, can still be deemed a caused coming into being."Under this definition there is no way for Con to claim that the universe has not been caused." - ProEven with the definition provided, it is not clear why the universe has to have been caused. Pro just assumes this without any argument. "The B-Theory only proves that the universe did not have a cause under one condition. And that condition is that the universe does not have a finite past." - ProThe above is false. Even with a finite past, the universe still does not come into being under B-Theory. Ergo, there is no reason to posit a cause of the universe. I have even argued that under A-Theory a finite past of the universe does not equate to a coming into being.Pro then completely ignores defending P4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I already proved, by appealing to Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins, that God is not needed to explain the universe.ConclusionAll of Pro's arguments were based on elementary logical fallacies. I showed that B-Theory is probably true by appealing to the Minkowsi space-time interpretation of Special Relativity, and why it is probably the correct interpretation. Since B-Theory is probably true, then the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false. Pro did not even provide any arguments in favor of the universe beginning to exist. I also showed that a finite past doesn't entail a "coming into existence". Additionally, even if we accept that the universe began to exist, Vilenkin's model shows how this can occur naturalistically. This means, God is not neededNot a single premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been shown true by Pro. The resolution has been negated.Sources[1] http://phys.org...[2] http://www.quantumphil.org...PS. This is just a reminder that the debate is now over. In Pro's last round, Pro must only put: "No argument will be posted here as agreed". |
17 | 59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org... |
29 | d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Fair warning: I wrote this at 3am, so expect some incoherency. C1) Incoherent Pro's plan does not make any sense. How is it possible for the *government* to directly hand out benefits to *illegal* immigrants while they're still classified as illegally residing in the US? The government, as the upholder of the law, would be obligated to round up and deport every single illegal immigrant that showed up to its administrative offices to collect benefits. Pro's plan is impossible to implement, and thus it doesn't even warrant consideration. C2) Cost One exhaustive study by the Heritage foundation finds that if all illegal immigrants were to be given amnesty, it would cost the state an additional $106 billion dollars per year [1] due to the discrepancy between how much the now-legal immigrants will pay in taxes and how much money in benefits they eat up. However, the key difference between Pro's plan and amnesty is that under Pro's plan, immigrants remain illegal and thus do not have to pay any taxes; this means that the true cost of providing illegal immigrants with benefits is even higher than $106 billion, perhaps closer to $200 billion. Now further consider the fact that the very act of providing benefits to illegal immigrants attracts even *more* illegal immigrants in even *greater* numbers. America has better work conditions, higher wages, and greater job availability than almost every country in the Western Hemisphere; that itself is already plenty of motivation to try surmounting the obstacles blocking entry into the US. By going even further and paying the illegal immigrants federal benefits, the US would basically become a guaranteed ticket to financial security for the average lower-class Mexican worker. We can look to academic analyses of the effects of amnesty to see that generous immigration policies such as Pro's plan do, indeed, lead to substantial increases in illegal immigration [2]. The point of all this is that providing illegal immigrants benefits, all things taken together, could easily cost close to half a trillion dollars. Considering that the current amount of money spent on such benefits is about $900 billion [1], this is an *enormous* increase in government expenditures, which will inevitably translate to a higher tax burden on the American populace, more federal debt, and funds being diverted from important areas like education to make ends meet. The monetary costs of providing benefits to illegal immigrants would be hugely detrimental. C3) Unjust By giving illegal immigrants governmental benefits, the state is basically rewarding them for breaking the law, and at the considerable expense of all the state's legal residents. In other words, the policy Pro is advocating is completely and utterly unjust -- a travesty against the American population, whose well-being is supposed to be the government's *priority*. For that reason alone, we should reject the policy proposed in the resolution I'll leave it at that for now. The resolution is negated. Back to Pro. [1] . http://www.heritage.org... [2] . http://www.nationalreview.com... |
31 | b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a disease. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent. |
13 | 4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Renewable (Clean) Energy resources are more cost efficient that fossil fuel and nuclear energy resources. There is little to no direct access to low cost fossil fuels. It costs more money to run nuclear and fossil fuel plants including billions a year to operate plus millions more for workers payments and compensations. Also fossil fuels and nuclear power creates other problems in the surrounding enviornment which ends up costing billions more. As an example, the clean up required for a bad oil spill costs over 10 billion dollars. Renewable energy processes are recyclable which means that their is little to no operting cost. The construction cost for more renewable energy machines and resources costs millions, but still not close to the construction and operating cost of Non renewable energy resources like fossil fuels. Jobs will be created from supporting renewable energy operations, and this will benefit the economy substancially. Because of these reasons there is more of a demand for Renewable Energy resources mandated by the United States every year. 1) http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2)http://www.epa.gov... |
20 | 84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00007-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that "moderation" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels "protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now. |
48 | a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | marriage age should be lowered Purpose of marriage is sharing property(including kids). Couple can live together without marriage as well. I will not fulfill my opponent's irrational request of 10 reasons. Since my opponent gave 0, my 2 will be more then enough. |
15 | 908f4ecb-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00007-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | animal testing NO MORE ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! animal testing is killing hundreds of animals and making them go blind as well. it is unfair to the animals. what did they ever do to us. look at this. http://www.bunspace.com.... i rest my case and now you see why animal testing should be stopped. please, dont be a animal killer and buy products not tested on animals |
30 | 5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00004-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime "My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data."1. I am a new member to this site (joined today). Thus, I am not familiar with my opponent, nor his parents.2. My opponent should not be lax in wording resolutions in a way that people unfamiliar with his debate history do not understand them."My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime""You can see my logic in my round 2 post, where I compared "concealed carry handgun laws" to "lightbulb changing laws". Obviously, in the absence of concealed carry laws, we are free to concealed carry. So what happens when we introduce "concealed carry handgun laws"? Either nothing changes, or these laws place some kind of restriction on concealed carry. Throughout, my opponent has not even defined "concealed carry handgun laws" while I have, with the only logical definition presented thus far."As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution."It is clear that my opponent is arguing for the resolution, but he is not PRO "conceal handguns reducing crime". He is PRO "conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime". Concealed handguns are a far cry from laws regarding concealed handguns, and so he is clearly arguing a different resolution."I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source."Unfortunately, he introduced this source after the first round, at a time when it is too late to be clarifying his true stance. In fact, I introduced my sources before he introduced his, which (by this "whoever clarifies what they're really arguing first wins" logic) means that I should win. But that's not how debate works. We need to know the bounds of the resolution before the instigator makes them up in the second round by using a certain source."Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime."Yes, my opponent is logically arguing the PRO side of the resolution. I am not that stupid (nor am I new to debate, I have debated team policy debate in high school for several years). However, my opponent says "I am arguing that it [concealed carry handgun laws] decreases crime" without defining "it" in the first place. He fails to define concealed carry handgun laws, expects me to know what they are, and then rejects my reasonable definition in favor of his non-existant definition."he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule oneOne of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/"My arguments are not semantics. I am merely stating that good definitions are neccessary for good debate, and that my opponent has failed to provide good definitions and has rejected the good definition that I provided.Wrapping up, my opponent does not acknowledge that definitions are crucial to debate. Instead, he issues an incredibly vague and ambiguous resolution and clarifies his position in the second round, leaving me in the dark all the while. Vote against vague resolutions, vote against bad debate, and vote against the instigator. |
18 | 2de92dce-2019-04-18T13:10:23Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Religion is becoming a business (Oops, I did forget #3) Rebuttals: 1. 'Holy books- The Quran, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and other holy books have made record sales throughout the world. ' So? Religious leaders do not profit from the sales of these books. Most of the Bible translations and the Bhagavad Gita are public domain. Furthermore, the people making money are the book companies and publishers, not the priests, imams, and clergy. The cardinals aren't out saying 'Well, Bill, I don't know, the sales of Bibles in Uganda are plummeting. I'll have to scale back my sermons this week so I can meet with our advisor about it!" These people rarely, if ever, have any interest in or connection to the sales of holy books. 'If that many educational books were sold, we would have no problem in educating children.' Completely irrelevant. 'Holy books are printed in mass amounts and even now provide profit to the publishing industry.' True, but publishing companies are not religious figures. They often have no connection to a religion. 2. 'Artifacts/trinkets- We all know the Christian cross has sold a lot as an accessory. Lockets depicting images or symbolic items related to religion have sold more, and have the same manufacturing cost as normal lockets, but higher price due to the religious factor.' While some shops are affiliated with religions, most people can buy those at Walmart or some jewelry store. Many of these businesses are completely separate entities. How does the Catholic Church make money off of cross necklaces sold at Kay Jewelers? 3. 'Gods' statues/idols- The Statue or painting of Jesus Christ is common in every Church, and sometimes a miniature model in the believers' homes. Religion greatly increases the business of photo frames, statues and idols. Many temples have a statue or idol of their God.' If the temples have statues, then they purchase from other companies! They don't make these statues! They aren't running a side sculpting business! While it is true that people make money off of making statues, how is the Pope responsible? There is a common theme here. (I think you mean 'many Catholic/Anglican/Episcopal churches'. Thousands of churches across multiple denominations regard statues of Christ as a sin.) 4.'Candles/diyas, matchsticks and oil- Hindus and Christians use candles/diyas to worship their lord. This increases consumption of oil, and boosts the wax industry. I would say it is rare to buy candles these days except for special occasions, and only religion has kept the art alive. ' Fine, so many Catholic/Anglican churches offer candles to burn at an altar. But you have to factor in that those candles and oil cost money to purchase, and that these elaborate churches cost money for upkeepance. I will concede that this practice is a business aspect, however. 'While I won't argue it causes pollution, it certainly is a great wastage of oil and other materials.' Once again, completely irrelevant. Unnecessary mudslinging. 5. 'Fortune tellers- Some fortune tellers rely on religion to establish their credibility, as they claim that God themselves have given them word.' Most fortune tellers have NO connection to the clergy at all! Fortune telling is actually usually against religious practices and statutes. 'Without religion, their business would finally be shut down and be a relief to all.' Not true. And the last bit is completely irrelevant. 6. 'Festivals- Festivals such as Christmas and Eid cause a great spike in sale of many items and boost business. While people need to celebrate, it is also a business strategy to revive dead shops.' It is a religious practice that shops can profit off of, however the MAIN idea of these festivals (important because the business aspect is not equal to the religious aspect, although it can be a bonus) is to adhere to the traditions/rules/statutes of religion and celebrate said sect! There is a definite link between these festivals and the economy, however clearly its not a ruse so that the bakers union can sell more bread. Christmas, for example, is heavily marketed. But not by the church! Many sermons focus on 'The True Meaning of Christmas', or 'Jesus is the Reason for the Season'. The church often denounces the emphasis on presents and products and the shift away from Christ. And what churches make money off of candy cane sales or holiday wreaths? The only real profit to the church is the increase in attendees on Christmas services, and that is a spiritual blessing, more so than a financial one. 7. 'Turbans and mats- The Muslim community have lot of mats as they bend over the ground to worship their Lord, and sikhs wear turbans. This gives a small boost to the clothing industry.' This is true, but mosques do not produce these goods. Clothing manufacturers do. 8. 'Many religions ask for donations outright, and have donation boxes in their place of worship. ' Should they work for free? Can they work for free? Yes there will be some con-men who line their pockets, but there are a few bad folks in every business. 'While some claim it is for charity, others use it for their personal profit.' Can you prove that? 9. 'Con hasn't managed to rebut my points that religion has a growing business aspect.' Did you read the opening line of my Round 2 statement? 10. While con may argue it doesn't overtake faith, faith is but a tool for religious officials to make sure their client is blinded and unquestioning while he buys their products. I believe I have debunked your assertions that religious officials profit from the aforementioned sales. Summations in Round 4? |
6 | c50238c9-2019-04-18T17:47:31Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary Yes, sure it can provide for those who do not get A+ as a back up, but generally is it still worth the time and money when you can get training and experience at the workforce. " We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair." even if it is an initial stage there are all stages anyway, taking college and uni out of the picture can still provide for those who didn't get A grades, it can be an open system. "Yet, is very unfair" If they are somewhat disadvantaged it's alright as there are disadvantages and advantages to certain people anyway like scholarships, uni fees, course prerequisites. " There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing." Education and qualification can be gained by the individual and proof of both can be tested when applying for a job. You have no sources or proof that university does educate you further on morals and ethics maybe the workplace does an even better job of that. "discipline and knowledge which high school and jobs alone can't do" still no proof i don't see why paying for a few extra years in a government scheme is any better than the workforce. Many who have dropped out of university or never even attended ended up being successful and somewhat knowledgable and ethical so i'm sorry but being educated and having dignity does not rely on University it can be developed by the individual if he attends or not. Just with the letter 'A' 'a' to 'l' S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast. Joined the Army at the age of 18 and fought in Europe during World War II. Did not attend college. Roman Abramovich, richest man in Russia, billionaire. Dropped out of college. He studied at the Moscow State Auto Transport Institute before taking a leave of absence from academics to go into business. He later earned a correspondence degree from the Moscow State Law Academy. Abigail Adams, U.S. first lady. Home schooled. Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school. Bryan Adams, singer, songwriter. High school dropout. Calpernia Adams, transsexual showgirl. Never attended college. As she noted, "My parents thought that college leads you away from God, so they hadn't saved any money." Sandy Adams, U.S. congressperson. Dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Air Force. Later got her GED and attended the police academy before being hired as a deputy sheriff. William Adams, aka Will.i.am, singer, songwriter, music producer, founder of the Black Eyed Peas, actor, entrepreneur. He formed his first group in high school. Never attended college. Gautam Adani, commodities billionaire from India. Dropped out of college. Adele, aka Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, singer and songwriter. Intended to go to college but got signed to a recording deal just after her high school graduation. Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. Dropped out of City College of New York to become a court reporter. He made his first fortune doing trade shows. Trace Adkins, country music singer and songwriter, actor. Studied at Louisiana Tech University but never officially graduated. Went to work on an oil rig instead. Mortimer Adler, author, educator, editor. Left high school at the age of 15 to work. Later received his high school equivalency degree and attended Columbia University. Ferran Adria, chef. Has been called the world's greatest chef. Did not finish high school. Miguel Adrover, fashion designer. High school dropout. Ben Affleck, actor, screenwriter. Left the University of Vermont after one semester; then dropped out of Occidental College to pursue acting. Andre Agassi, tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16. His father would drive the kids to school but, instead, actually took them to local tennis courts to practice. Dianna Agron, singer, dancer, actress. "I didn't take the typical path and go to college after high school. Instead, I saved up money from teaching dance classes and moved to L.A." Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. Never finished high school. Danny Aiello, actor. Dropped out of high school at the age of 16 to join the army. Later received a high school equivalency degree. Troy Aikman, Superbowl-winning football quarterback, TV sports commentator. In 2009, he finally graduated from UCLA, 20 years after leaving college to play in the National Football League. Aikman had promised his mother, when he left school just two courses shy of a degree, that he would return and finish. In 2009, at the age of 42, he finally fulfilled that commitment, earning A's in his last two courses, thus earning a bachelor's degree in sociology. Malin Akerman, model, actress. Enrolled in York University (Toronto) but left after about a year to see what else was out there. She moved to Los Angeles to become an actress. Dennis Albaugh, billionaire founder of pesticide company Albaugh Inc. Earned a 2-year agriculture business degree from Des Moines Community College. Did not continue on to a 4-year degree. Edward Albee, playwright. Dropped out of Trinity College after three semesters. Jack Albertson, Oscar-winning actor. High school dropout. http://sharevdo.com... - and those who not only never dropped out but never attended, incredible While it can be useful to many my point is that it shouldn't be 'necessary' that's the point of the argument In reply to your last few points, it may be the government's interest to educate and build a strong nation but that's the whole trap you just said it. Trying to pay off a loan for a few years sounds like a farmer, farm animal situation. We are slaves into make a "stronger nation" i think we deserve more liberty and the government should be using taxes more wisely. "where there is an assurance that learning is taking place" you can't assure that, i see more people enjoying online ways of learning like khan academy rather than the classroom, and i already stated that the sense of 'community' can be formed online but that alone shouldn't require that much money "-Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge." how so? you didn't justify, a degree doesn't show someone's overall educational status either it just limits the knowledge to the one degree like you stated. Yeah social democracy is the increase of liberty for the nation and looks like the best step to take in regards to 'indirect slavery' as I like to call it |
29 | 9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Allow illegal immigrants amnesty. "I have no facts, honestly. It's all coming from the heart" You saying that makes my point clearer. You cannot decide something based off of what you feel. You have to lookdeeper than that. Once again, my solution to illegal immigrants is to keep them out in the first place. We cannot grant them amnesty now or this will create that "magnet effect" I talked about earlier. We simply cannot do that. "You're right about not having any money" Enough said. "The goal is that we will be able to house more and more people because there will be enough jobs" I would hope that would be our goal. What you are looking for is a utopian society, a perfect society that accepts all and becomes this 'perfect society'. All utopian societies have failed. We cannot become some sort of caregivers to millions that illegally come to the United States. We have laws for a reason. Legal immigrants, come on in. Thank you for participating in this debate. Good luck on the results. |
33 | 3471cac1-2019-04-18T14:10:42Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Outline I. Summary of Con's argument. II. Rebuttal of Con's argument III. Summary IV. Links I. Summary of Con's argument First, Con only uses one large paragraph. Making it harder to decipher Con's argument. Second, rather than spell out Pro's outline, Con uses shorthand. 1 A. as opposed to 1 A. Establishing sentience. Third, Con has yet to use any outside sources. Forth Con relies upon religion to justify eating of meat, eggs, and dairy without revealing which religion Con is using. Fifth, there are many bare assertions in Con's argument. II. Rebuttal of Con's argument "1 A. i do mostly agree,but i don't believe animals are equal to humans.God said we are to rule over the animals and they are food for us.Animals shouldn't be neglected or killed in a painful way but they are not humans and shouldn't be treated as humans. " Con Which religion do you refer to? I assume since you mean Hinduism because that was the first religion that came into my head. " What is Hinduism? Hinduism is the world's oldest extant religion, with a billion followers, which makes it the world's third largest religion." [21]. "1 B. I agree that factory farming is wrong and should not be allowed." Con Agreed. "My solution is to raise animals outside in fenced enclosures that cover many acres.They would be outside in their native environment and would live like they would if they was in the wild. People would care for the animals and they would be slaughtered in a humane way. This way animals would. live happy and healthy lives,and humans would get the food we need." Con Disagree, there are many cruel practices involved in even small scale farming. Watch the Happy Cow slideshow from humane myth if you disbelieve this claim. [22.] Even small farms have cruel practices and animal suffering is present thus, all meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned, including small organic farms. Remember the profit motive is at work, it would be much cheaper to use a useless label like "humane" and then use inhumane practices. The temptation would always be present. As for the food we need, we can get plenty from vegan sources as shown in the previous round. In fact vegan food is more sustainable. "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [23]. Its common knowledge that starvation and world hunger are a problem. By continuing to eat meat you are putting an unnecessary demand on the world's resources. Thus, helping to cause people to starve to death. Human blood is on the meat eater's hands. "A child starves to death every 2 seconds. 40,000 people starve to death every day while their governments ship grain to the U.S. to feed pigs, cows and chickens so that we may satisfy our desire for flesh, milk and eggs. If everyone in the world ate like people in the U.S. do, only 2.5 billion people could be sustained. The current world population is 6.3 billion and is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050. If everyone ate a Vegan diet, at least 20 billion people could be sustained. " [24]. "1 C Would. not be causing suffering if raised in the way stated above." Disagree. Humans haven't found a way to execute other humans reliably without pain. Pro contends there is no reliable way to kill a sentient being without causing suffering. "In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched. Some executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions. Autopsies have shown severe, foot long chemical burns to the skin and needles have been found in soft tissue."[25.] "1. D. first off I believe it's our right to eat meat and dairy products." Con You seem to be one of these three religions, Judaism, Christianity, or Islamic. Although under those religions a follower has the right to eat meat and dairy products, you don't have the right to be Greedy, one of the seven deadly sins. You also are bound by the ten commandments. The sixth commandment is "thou shall not kill." By counting to eat animal flesh you are taking more than your share due, thus greed. Not only that but you are killing other human beings. Killing other humans via air pollution, global climate change, and out competing starving 3rd world country people for grain. The grain is given to feed animals raised in factory farms as opposed to feeding hungry humans, as seen in link [24]. Thus, breaking the sixth commandment. Note, Pro is not a biblical scholar, so Pro doesn't know the parameters of the sixth commandment. Still, its probably not a good idea to kill other human beings, even if accidental. "YIt would be very hard for most people to survive on just a vegetarian diet.Lack of nutrients would cause people to get malnutrition and diseases caused by malnutritionment would be a crisis." Con Pro already proved a person can be healthy as a vegan and receive enough nutrients in round 2 1 D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods. Furthermore, if everyone was forced to be a vegan it would be a lot easier. Since people could share tips and give moral support. "1. E disagrees." Con No back up this claim, Pro provides evidences to the contrary. "2 A. Would be hard for everyone to eat this way." Con Bare assertion. "2. B. Cholesterol,and fat is not unhealthy if not over eaten." Con True, but Con fails to define the parameters of how much can be eaten before too much. "3 A. Its called the food cycle,nothing to worry about. " Con Pro begs to differ. By continually eating meat a person is practicing greed and gluttony. " what about all the acres of forest that will have to be cut down for fields of crops?" Con Meat production takes copious amounts of grain and grain fields. These grain fields could be used to feed the hungry. "It would do more harm to the environment if we destroy the environment by making more room for crops to grow." Con Less crops would be needed. As shown above. III. Summary Pro's argument stands, Pro has defeated every argument Con has made. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Save the planet, save the animals, feed starving people by giving up meat today. Vote Pro. IV. Links 21. http://hinduism.about.com... 22. http://humanemyth.org... 23. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 24. http://www.animalliberationfront.com... 25. http://www.amnestyusa.org... |
47 | c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00004-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. I negate the resolution which states Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Definitions- large-of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity beneficial-favorable or advantageous; resulting in good homework-schoolwork that a student is required to do at home student-a person who is studying at a school or college |
29 | f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally. |
37 | b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phone use good or bad state your debate Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response. |
3 | 83f9b733-2019-04-18T13:54:03Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Gay Marriage should be allowed When I say anyone I am referring to humans, not God. I use God and the bible to guide my life, but I have many atheists friends, with diffrent personal "rule-books," for lack of a better term. You haven't really given me much to rebuttal, and I made my opening/main argument in round 1, so I end here, until you show how you claim it affects me, or something else I can rebuttal. (I I took offense easily I wouldn't go to a website made for people to disagree with me) |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00015-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Bystanders often feel intimidated by openly carried guns. |
33 | 8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00005-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Everyone should be vegetarian. Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Palestinian state would be base for terrorism "Gaza and the two-state solution". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: "Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?" |
18 | a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES INTRO: Yes rich churches have overall a lot of money and are using it wrong I agree that is a problem that must be fixed but there is one thing this resolution forgets to back up and why judge it can"t be passed. The reason I am going neg today is because I believe the tax exemptions should only be removed from churches that are rich not the poor churches that actually need it. 1.Poor churches need the money "Not enough to pay off tax emptions "A lot of smaller churches start out in poorer areas 2.Huge churches don"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. "Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity "In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? "Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your "faith". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. " Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim "god can pay our taxes" so if they believe in this they don"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the "voluntary" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar "church funded" homes, driving "church gifted" Jaguars, and wearing "church donated" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion " to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. So yes I agree that rich churches shouldn't have this money but what you have to understand is their are poor churches that doe. I personaly go to one that has about 10 members without tax emptions we wouldn't survive. NOt all churches are good big buildings in fact a lot of Baptist or apostolic or those religions have buildings in poorer areas. |
19 | ea2e1a62-2019-04-18T19:39:51Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal. I negate: Gay marriage should be legal. [Contentions] Contention I: "Slippery Slope" Argument By allowing gay marriage and not defining marriage between a man and a women, then the law is open to all types of other definitions. Gay Rights Activists claim that marriage should be based on nothing more then love. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? Why isn't incestuous/family marriages allowed? It's all based on love right? By allowing gay marriage, the state is being opened to all sorts of other acts that are seen as wrong in society. Marriage cannot be based solely on love. This leads to my next point. Contention II: Natural Law The question now arises how should marriage be defined and why. Marriage should not be defined based on love only (As proven in my above point). Therefore, for the sake of this debate I will explain natural law. Natural law dictates that society should not condone an action that violates the natural law. Marriage should be the contract between 2 people admitting themselves in the natural process of sex. The reason for a married couple is to be the basis for child making, and thus a natural family. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men cannot naturally make children, that goes for 2 women as well. Marriage should be the sacred bond for the fulfillment of this natural law of sex and family. [Affirmative Burden] My opponent has claimed in his opening round that the reason he thinks gay marriage should be legal is because there are no arguments that say it shouldn't. As a reminder, my opponent is the one with the burden of proof for this round. He must submit an argument/contention affirming the resolution. If not, then you must vote Con. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. |
42 | c40de0c9-2019-04-18T15:41:52Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should abortion be allowed My opponent in this round has made a number of generalizations in order to facilitate false constructs. I will address these in a moment, but first I will support my claim about the balance of utility between a mother and her child. My opponent's only argument against this is that the quality of life for the child will be worse. My opponent has no sources supporting this, so that alone is enough to demolish it. The concept that the child will undoubtedly "grow up to be a miserable drug addict" has no weight behind it, and it is a generalization about the lives of people who were conceived by accident. Although good statistics are difficult to find, it is safe to say that as nearly 40 percent of births are unintended (3), living conditions for those born by accident are not by necessity lower than those of their parents. While rape and the possibility of death are certainly things we would rather avoid, it is selfish to value the possibility of worsening part of one's life over the certainty of completely losing all of it. Here's the math to prove it. C x Q x D = V Where C is the chance, Q is the quality decrease, and D is the duration. If we assume unplanned pregnancy to have a 90% of reducing the quality of life for the mother by 90%, then plug in the fifty-five remaining years of their life (assuming an age of 20), this is the result. 0.9 x 0.9 x 55 = 44.55 It should be noted that although good statistics are hard to find, the numbers I have used here are very generous to the Pro side. Most women are older than 20 when they are pregnant, and a 90% decrease in the quality of life is simply absurd. However, even using this ridiculously inflated value, it still fails to match the loss suffered by the aborted fetus. 1.0 x 1.0 x 75 = 75 This is the math of utilitarianism, and this is why the life of the fetus has a higher value than that of the mother almost every time. My opponent has stated that "Any fertile man and woman have the potential to create a child". I would like my opponent to support the contention that a fertile man in Canada and a fertile woman in New Zealand can create a child. This may seem absurd, but it's important to remember that when you remove things from isolation you fundamentally change their properties. So if my opponent says that they should simply travel to each other, then that would not work because either the man would not be in Canada or the woman not in New Zealand. Either way, you're changing the problem definition. This is the same principle on which I discuss the isolate of the sperm cell from the egg cell. By themselves, there is no potential for a child. Although it may seem that a mother should have the right to choose for those who cannot, this is what is called virtual representation and is recognized as illegitimate in most systems. Likewise, I do not think that anyone should have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner for another person by themselves. My opponent does not seem to understand that even when carrying capacity is reached the majority of the population is unaffected. If we assume species X has a carrying capacity of 5 million, then what happens when that number is exceeded? 5 million are supported, the rest are not or are minimally. The 5 million will be supported either way, regardless of whether some are not being supported. In fact, the only difference between allowing nature to take its course and artificial population control is that population control requires money and resources that could be spent feeding the poor. Lastly, I would like to say that the fetus still is alive and can be killed. It may not be conscious yet, but plants are not conscious but are clearly recognized as alive. Now, I do not argue that killing plants is immoral because a plant cannot have a future like ours while a fetus can. These points are addressed by Marquis in his paper I linked. (3) http://abcnews.go.com... |
3 | 55ea094d-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00002-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Are Zoos right in religions like Islam or Christianity Zoos should be allowed |
9 | 9389d854-2019-04-18T18:50:20Z-00002-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should wear uniforms According to the first amendment I have the right to verbally be a jerk to other people, I can be a racist and a bigot. According to the second amendment I have the right to carry a six shooter revolver if I so please. Schools are public and private institutions, if it is private then it is providing a service to it's customers and requires them to dress a certain way since it is their business and they can do what they want, kind of like restaurants, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". Companies have the right to choose what people wear on their property otherwise they won't provide you the goods and services they provide. The government also has the right to choose what people wear on their property as well. When someone else owns the property you happen to be on, you have to abide by their laws whether it be a private entity or the federal government. If you don't like the rules of those that own the property where you go to school then you have the option to be home schooled. It is not a violation of your rights or civil liberties when you willingly go on someone Else's property and choose to abide by their rules and policies. Let's say you were a smoker, outside you can smoke, but you are over at my house, if I don't like smoking, I have the right to either have you stop smoking or leave. Am I violating your rights? Schools also ban guns, foul language, bikinis, cigars, etc. All of which you can posses off of school property and are allowed to posses under the U.S. Bill of Rights. Would it be a violation of ones civil liberties if someone wearing a bikini was cursing while producing a revolver and smoking a cigar on a school was asked to leave? Of course not and it shouldn't be considered a violation of ones rights if the school asks you to wear a shirt of a certain color if they so please. Their property, not yours, their rules, not yours. Since my opponent is going off first hand experiences, I will as well. In the schools my friends and I went to, students were still jerks no doubt, but we as a school were far better academically. When we went to high school most of us did very well because the school we went to before was a private religious school that enforced a rather strict dress code. We were already very responsible, very well disciplined students. Most people from my school were taking classes that were a higher level than others at the same age who came from public schools. Now I'm going to take what you say about your personal experiences as facts, assuming they are truthful. It could be very possible that the school that had worse students with uniforms than the students that are allowed to choose what you wear, are simply bad students. Taking care of an wearing a uniform certainly won't turn delinquents into honor roll students but you can't prove that wearing a uniform, somehow makes students perform worse, which is your responsibility as the instigator. The U.S. service academies (USAFA, Annapolis, West point, etc), also have strict rules regarding uniforms, these are some of the highest ranking colleges in the world where they train men and women to become very competent officers in the military. Officers are the ones who are in charge of nuclear weapons, radars, large groups of soldiers, fly jet fighters, etc The instructors and the officers in charge of these establishments agree that if their cadets were allowed to wear whatever they wanted, discipline would be severely compromised, despite the fact that a cadet may still be a jackass or have a bad personality, they would perform better in their activities both academic and athletic. I'm not going to accept your "source" since that is simply hearsay and have no way of verifying those comments of being accurate. I was already going out on a limb accepting what you say as accurate. You are the instigator so you have the burden of proof to show how having uniforms is somehow worse than being able to wear whatever you want. I have already made a thorough argument explaining that it isn't a violation of ones rights when you are on another entity's property and are forced to follow the rules they set. You have to prove that having uniforms are somehow bad other than use the argument that they violate one's rights, which they don't, and I can list a good enough amount of private and public schooling institutions that require students to wear some kind of uniform that are either on par or exceed other schools in performance. |
50 | 8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00008-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Everyone should be vegetarian. In this debate, if you accept it, you must prove that being vegetarian is better than eating meat. I will prove otherwise. Accepting this debate, you are accepting a few rules.1. In the first round, you write your opening statements, and in the last you write "thanks for the debate". (only applies to opponent)2. No plagiarism.3. No using quotes as most of your argument, unless you are quoting in order to refute.4. No profanity5. No forfeiting6. No concessions before round 3. ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE RULES ESTABLISHED. If any rule is broken, the culprit will recieve a 7 point deduction unless forgiven, can prove they didn't break the rule or for other special reasons that will be discussed if such occcurs. |
4 | 6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | The death penalty should NOT be allowed 1st round - Opening statement / arguments:1. Too many innocent people: "The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online on Apr. 28, 2014, estimated that 4.1% of death row sentences (1 in 25) were wrongful, a "conservative estimate" according to the authors and twice the number of death row cases that were actually overturned."This means that a large number of people in the long run are going to be killed wrongly - and think of all the people we wrongly killed in the past. What happens when the mistake is discovered after a man has been executed for a crime he did not commit? What do we say to his children? Do we erect an apologetic tombstone over his grave? What good will that do?2. There is racial and economic discrimination in application of the death penalty: "About 99 percent of the death-row inmates are men. Of the 1,058 prisoners on death row by Aug. 20,1982, 42 percent were black, whereas about 12 percent of the United States population is black. Those who receive the death penalty still tend to be poor, poorly educated and represented by public defenders or court-appointed lawyers." This is a racist and sexist act that happens to frequently to be allowed.3. The death penalty gives some of the worst offenders publicity that they do not deserve: "While the death penalty undoubtedly deters some would-be murderers, there is evidence that it encourages others— especially the unstable who are attracted to media immortality like moths to a flame. If instead of facing heady weeks before television cameras, they faced a lifetime of obscurity in prison, the path of violence might seem less glamorous to them." This gives the people who least deserve publicity, publicity that they earned by commiting a crime. What kind of message does that send to our country?4. The death penalty involves medical doctors, who are sworn to preserve life, in the act of killing: In 1980 the American Medical Association, responding to this innovation, declared that a doctor should not participate in an execution - it is AGAINST A DOCTORS' OATH. When doctors use their stethoscopes to indicate whether the electric chair has done its job, they are assisting the executioner - dosen't this go against everythign what being a doctor is about? Saving lifes?5. It is hipocritical: Why are we killing people for killing people? Why are we doing the same thing we are punishing others for doing? That is obsurd.6. The death penalty is an expression of the absolute power of the state; abolition of that penalty is a much- needed limit on government power: "What makes the state so pure that it has the right to take life? Look at the record of governments throughout history—so often operating with deception, cruelty and greed, so often becoming masters of the citizens they are supposed to serve. "Forbidding a man's execution," Camus said, "would amount to proclaiming publicly that society and the state are not absolute values." It would amount to saying that there are some things even the state may not do." We are always complaning how the states are given too much power - why should they have control over killing people also?7. There are strong religious reasons for many to oppose the death penalty: "Mr. Viguerie wrote in a recent book, "that Christ would oppose the killing of a human being as punishment for a crime." This view is supported by the New Testament story about the woman who faced execution by stoning (John 8:7, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"). Former Senator Harold Hughes (D., Iowa), arguing against the death penalty in 1974, declared: "'Thou shalt not kill' is the shortest of the Ten Commandments, uncomplicated by qualification or exception....It is as clear and awesomely commanding as the powerful thrust of chain lightning out of a dark summer sky." Even preists and strong religious figures are against it for clear reasons - why should we effect religions for others' wrong doing?8. There is a better alternative - life without parole: This sentence would make the criminals suffer every single day and be forced to think about what they have done. It is a more harsh sentence because they can not escape the negativity they created - they have to live with it each and every long, boring day. Killing the criminals is an easy way out for them - they will just think; "oh, if I kill people who I hate, then I will die and not have to deal with it." Wouldn't that encourage more criminals to act? This would make crime rates increase.9. We pay many millions for the death penalty system: "In 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year." It costs much more to execute people then to provide for basic needs of life - why do we need to pay more money for people who did bad things? Why do we have to pay money out of our TAX PAYER MONEY to kill people? Why do we have to pay for criminals we have nothing to do with?10. Mentally ill people are executed: "One out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness." This is discrimination and goes against the laws of our country.(I am looking forward to your opening argument and then we will start round 2 with counterarguments - so don't worry about my arguments just yet - use this round to present as much evidence to support your side as you can ~ Sara) Citations:http://www.procon.org......;http://americamagazine.org......;http://www.oadp.org......; |
24 | 9b6c2fbb-2019-04-18T14:01:14Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Static Tax Rate Kasper.....did you even read the debate question? Unless you can answer in a sensible and intelligent way you should really think about removing yourself from this forum!! |
45 | ae6b582c-2019-04-18T13:52:52Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | What number system would be the best replacement for base 10. Doubling and Halving There is this common math problem that goes as follows: If on day 1 I get paid one penny, and each day after that my number of pennies doubles, how much money will I have at the end of thirty days? This is how many pennies you would have after each day in dozenal: 1: 1 2: 2 3: 4 4: 8 5: 14 6: 28 7: 54 8: A8 9: 194 10: 368 11: 714 12: 1,228 13: 2,454 14: 4,8A8 15: 9,594 16: 1,6B68 17: 31,B14 18: 63,A28 19: 107,854 20: 213,4A8 21: 426,994 22: 851,768 23: 1,4A3,314 24: 2,986,628 25: 5,751,054 26: B,2A2,0A8 27: 1A,584,194 28: 38,B48,368 29: 75,A94,714 30: 12B,969,228 This is how many pennies you would have after each day in octal: 1: 1 2: 2 3: 4 4: 10 5: 20 6: 40 7: 100 8: 200 9: 400 10: 1,000 11: 2,000 12: 4,000 13: 10,000 14: 20,000 15: 40,000 16: 100,000 17: 200,000 18: 400,000 19: 1,000,000 20: 2,000,000 21: 4,000,000 22: 10,000,000 23: 20,000,000 24: 40,000,000 25: 100,000,000 26: 200,000,000 27: 400,000,000 28: 1,000,000,000 29: 2,000,000,000 30: 4,000,000,000 The numbers in octal all have a 1, 2, or 4 followed by a series of zeros, while in dozenal, the answers are a seemingly random series of digits. For octal you just add a zero to the end every third day, while for dozenal, more math is needed and is impractical to do in your head or by hand. Octal makes repeatedly halving easy too. Example: 1, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, 0.004 . The simplicity of doubling and halving in octal has benefits in multiple areas including but not limited to calculating the amount of half-lives for carbon dating, and calculating the next tile number in the game 2048. Binary Conversion: Octal numbers can be converted into binary by simply converting each individual octal digit into its binary equivalence and combining them. For example, 752: 7 in octal to binary would be 111; 5 in octal to binary would be 101; 2 in binary would be 010. Put them together and you get 111101010, which is the binary equivalence of 752 octal. It"s that simple. Dozenal on the other hand, take the number 25 dozenal: You first find the biggest value that is 2^n where n is an integer, that is less than 25. That number is 14 (2^4 dozenal) Now we have 10000 (2^4 binary); you take 25 minus 14 and get 11, Now we convert 11 (dozenal) into binary 8 (2^3) is the largest 2^n number under 11, so we add 1000 to the previous 10000 to get 11000. We take 11 minus 8 to get 5 (dozenal). 5 in dozenal is 101 in binary, so we add 101 to 11000 and we get the final binary answer of 11101. We have to do much harder work to convert to binary in dozenal than in octal, even when the dozenal number is much smaller than the octal number. Computer Programming Since computers use binary, it is beneficial to use a number system in which people can easily convert to and from binary. Let"s say you have a variable that can store a positive integer of 32 bits of length; What would the largest number it can hold be? It would be 2^32 -1, which in octal is a simple easy to remember 39,999,999,999 , while the answer in dozenal would be 9BA461593 , a number almost no one is going to be able to remember. It is beneficial for programmers to know the maximum number a variable can store instead of having to look it up on a calculator. Converting base 12 "decimal", such as 0.B, to binary will always result in a number with infinite digits after the decimal point. enter 0.10000000000000 into the base n calculator cited at bottom for base 12 to base 2, and you will see the infinite 01"s at the end. Base 8 doesn"t have this problem, for example .1 octal equals .001 binary. Computers truncate infinite decimals, which creates rounding errors[1], which can lead to confusing results like .1 + .2 equaling .300000001 according to computers if dozenal were used. Source: [1] https://docs.oracle.com... (Section: Rounding Error) Base N Converter: http://korn19.ch... Calculator: http://web2.0calc.com... |
23 | 9386e729-2019-04-18T16:05:14Z-00003-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Euthanasia 'Logical' argument My opponent's syllogism's conclusions are flawed. If you assume the points, it may seem like a humane conclusion, however, the assumption that the points are correct--and then the conclusion--is inaccurate. My opponent's whole arguments rests on a few things: the patients choose death, and that euthanasia will reduce their pain in the long run. Both of these assumptions are debatable. Patients who 'choose' death generally do so with bad reasoning. In fact, a significant amount of people who choose death are mentally ill. Research argues that if you are depressed, you are at least 4.1 times more likely to request for euthanasia, according to research of cancer patients with 3 months to live [1]. Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]. Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records 'asked for death' with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first [3]. Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient [4]. A review of medical opinion shows that good pain medications can make life fairly painless, not the painful picture which my opponent construes. The vast majority of patients who suffer suffer because their doctor has not been properly instructed as to how to administer pain medication. Doctors fear to give too much pain medication as it may cause death, though this fear is often imagines. Doctors generally give medications PRN (per required need), but this leads to less satisfactory pain alleviation. Dosages vary based upon pain extent, and often underestimate the amount of medication needed, due to their lack of education on the issue. Undertreatment of pain is another leading cause for euthanasia requests. It may be thought that pain medications must be an expertise thing, this is not the case; most medicines capable of making the illness painless--therefore making euthanasia obsolete--are straightforward. Doctors need to understand that high dosages of opioids will cure the pain and are wholly safe when administered properly. Cancer patients often need 20-60mg of morphine every 4 hours. If palliative care is properly admitted, the need for pain relief through death minimizes [5]. Therefore, education of doctors, not the legalization of physician assisted suicide, will be superior in extending the life spans of patients and reducing pain. Economic Impacts Calculations show the savings per euthanasia are about 10,000 per victim. When this is properly accounted for, we would save about $627 million each year. My opponents research uses numbers including the mentally ill, who should not be allowed to receive euthanasia in the first place. So, assuming we can properly bar these people from being euthanized, this is the proper savings amount. This number is less than 1/3 of one percent of the US's health care costs. The economic savings is very limited, and surely not worth the lives lost [6]. Other things would be far better at reducing healthcare costs: reducing regulations which amount to $169 billion of added cost to the industry each year [7], expand HSAs, push malpractice reform, privatize medicaid, and shrink the HHS would all be much better options to reducing the economic impacts of health care costs than killing patients [8]. Voluntary deaths will always occur There is no doubt in my mind that there will be the occasional euthanized patient. My opponent's study is flawed in the fact it doesnt account for patients with mental illness. As noted, mental illness is the main cause for the decision of death, which is technically 'voluntary', or would be in the study my opponent cited. However, if the request was made on their basis for wanting to die due to depression, we can see how this should not be considered a true case of voluntarism, as the decision was made outside of a solid state of mind. My opponent claims euthanasia was a cause for 0.8% of deaths in the Netherlands before legalization, whereas his study noted that after legalization it was 1.7% of deaths were caused by euthanasia and .1% physician assisted suicide, totalling 1.8%, a 1% increase. Further, the rate of euthanasia has steadily increased since legalization, meaning legalization has led to more acceptance of the idea of euthanasia [9]. Further, a more recent study argues that now 2.8% of deaths are caused by euthanasia in the Netherlands [10]. Conclusion: Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia actually will harm palliative care, however, palliative care reduces, if not eliminates, the moral case my opponent construed: in fact, pain can be controlled without death and rather with proper education. The economic cost, enacting laws my opponent would pass if he was in control (has to be voluntary, not for mental illness unless treated) would actually lead to very minimal savings, and in fact, other methods that will increase quality of care--which don't involve killing patients--are superior in reducing healthcare costs. And finally, although even in areas where euthanasia is illegal euthanasia still occurs, the fact is, legalizing it leads to its practice being much more common. Even in the Netherlands where the laws prohibiting it were very unenforced, legalization led to a skyrocketing in its use. Imagine how rare it would be if the Netherlands kept their anti-euthanasia culture which they had in WW2. Euthanasia should remain illegal, resolution negated. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.nationalreview.com... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://medicine.emory.edu... 6. http://www.levinlaw.com... 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.ipi.org... 9. http://www.life.org.nz... 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... |
47 | f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00005-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Be Abolished Firstly, let me define the important terms. ~Homework: work that teachers give their students to do at home ~Abolished: to end an activity or custom officially The argument I will be saying in this round is: ~homework is beneficial to children in moderate amounts And in Round 3 I will be stating that: ~homework enables school days to be shorter Then in the final round, I will be doing a rebuttal of my opponents well-meaning, but perhaps misguided views. Firstly, homework is beneficial to children in schools, as long as it is in moderate amounts. I, as team opposition, understand that in large amounts, homework can overload the child and can be very stressful. But when moderated, homework can be extremely beneficial. The most common benefit of homework is the obvious, improvement in academics. "Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses. But, according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework." This source obviously shows the correlations found in tests. However, doing homework has a lot of less-know benefits for children "Pryor-Johnson identifies four qualities children develop when they complete homework that can help them become high-achieving students: responsibility; time management; perseverance; and self-esteem. While these cannot be measured on standardized tests, perseverance has garnered a lot of attention as an essential skill for successful students. Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students" mental and physical health. Responsibility and time management are highly desirable qualities that benefit students long after they graduate." My source clearly demonstrates my point. Whilst the general public may not know these benefits, they are there, improving the child's work across the board. So, as you can clearly see from these arguments, and the sources I have provided, homework should not be abolished because it is beneficial to the children who do them. Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://education.cu-portland.edu... ~https://www.washingtonpost.com... |
38 | b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes I urge that the votes be mindful of the arguments presented in this round. First, my opponent outlines in his first round of debate that he intends to uphold two areas contention to warrant a vote for the Pro. The medical Benefits of marijuana and the safety of marijuana. The second point of contention, the safety of marijuana, has has since been dropped; my opponent recognizes that there are explicit negative impacts to marijuana and that it is not a wholly safe drug as he originally claimed This drop, signified by the drop of the alcohol and tobacco argument is the first reason to vote Con. Next, In my opponent's constructive to this debate he outlines four areas of suggested medical benefit that result for the usage of medical marijuana. These four areas are: Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. These are the only medical benefits that should be considered as any other medical benefits would have been new arguments; however in warrant these argument he cites only Business Insider and HowStuffWorks until the previous last round. The means that the 'chronic pain' and 'other benefits' voter my opponent offers are illegitimate and should be stricken from the flow. The Business Insider article expressly details that for Cancer, Alzeimers, MS and Arthritis marijuana serves as an anesthetic only, not attacking the core problems associated with this disease. As cited from MD Dr. Mbakwe in round 3, "Dr. Mbakwe is uncomfortable with the lack of control and regulation of medicinal marijuana. She says other medications, like methotrexate, treat the autoimmune disease at the root of the problem, and in turn can control pain and inflammation in combination with pain medications like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs . .. On the other hand, while marijuana may help with pain symptoms, it does nothing for the disease progression or organ damage, Dr. Mbakwe says. [16]" Marijuana only relieves pain while causing substantial damage to vital organs. Marijuana is not a sustainable treatment as there are a number of viable alternative for anesthetic relief. These alternatives include Propofol[5], Halothane[6] and Enflurane[7], none of which have the same negative-effects of marijuana. This argument was never addressed. In round 4 my opponent expands the benefits of medical marijuana in treating breast cancer through the use of Cannabidol, but I show in round 3 that it only helps breast cancer and second that it can be produced artificially. "[15]Clinically, there are still limited therapeutic interventions for aggressive and metastatic breast cancers available. Clearly, effective and nontoxic therapies are urgently required. Id-1, an inhibitor of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors, has recently been shown to be a key regulator of the metastatic potential of breast and additional cancers. Using a mouse model, we previously determined that metastatic breast cancer cells became significantly less invasive in vitro and less metastatic in vivo when Id-1 was down-regulated by stable transduction with antisense Id-1. It is not possible at this point, however, to use antisense technology to reduce Id-1 expression in patients with metastatic breast cancer. " As for Alzheimers which my opponent states alzheimers cures, this isn't the case whatsoever; "[4]Marijuana may be able to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease" marijuana has been shown to slow the effects of alzheimers but not do away with them entirely. This is the second reason to vote Con. Next, I would like to address the issue of evidence. I have shown numerous times in this debate where my opponent has cited either uncredible evidence or where he miscites evidence. Norml. org is the biggest example of this bad evidence, but other examples include outright rejecting my evidence regarding Paranoia and Shizophrenia; even the evidence he cites in the prior round supports me here, stating "[]Findings suggest that regular cannabis users are significantly more prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions as well as disorganization, but not interpersonal deficits, than non-regular users and those who have never used. " [23] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Furthermore in offering his voters Pro never actually expands upon the reasons he is winning the arguments concerning Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. He simply claims that he has cited authoritative evidence to support his claims. These should be considered drops as these are appeals to authority that never actually cite the authority. Placing a link in a debate does not stand to warrant the arguments made. |
28 | cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal First let me outline my position. Prostitution should NOT be legal Legislation Helps Protect Society Health Issues of Promiscuity Links to Organized Crime and Use of Illegal Drugs Links to Sex Slavery Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade Medical Expenses for Participants Medical Expenses for "Second Hand" Victims I want to cover all the points above (unless there are some you wish to concede in the interest of saving space and time in the debate). First I want to look at the example of Germany's recent change to legalize prostitution.The German Experiment. Historically prostitution was never outlawed in Germany. The took the position of Saint Augustine that prostitution should be tolerated. [1][2] by Governments. In the 1500s there was a change in attitude because of the Protestant reformation and the rise of syphilis. In the 1800s sex trade workers had to register with local police and health authorities. In the early 1900s the focus was on regulation (not abolition) and then government run brothels were common under Nazi rule. Later, in East Germany prostitution was illegal, but in West Germany it was regulated. In unified Germany prostitution was never fully illegal, but the rules varied by municipality. In 2002, Germany changed the law in an effort to improve the legal situation of prostitutes. [3] Let's look at the results of the 2002 change in law. It is estimated that 400,000 work as prostitutes in Germany (Pop 89 million).[4] "It is a magnet for migrant sex workers, who are lured from their wretched villages in Bulgaria and Romania and turned into virtual sex slaves in Germany's 3,000 brothels. Police are nearly powerless to help them." - [5] Germany is finding that the current laws are not working, and have added more laws to refine what is legal and what is not. [6] [7] The German government (2007 report) concluding that few prostitutes had taken advantage of regular work contracts and that work conditions had improved only slightly, if at all The law has failed. Prostitutes themselves don't want to change their working conditions and contracts to the new (2002) legal status. [8] Prostitution should NOT be legal. It increases rape (non consensual sex). It increases human trafficking(sex slavery). It increases statutory rape (consensual sex with underage partners) The usual age of entry to the "profession" is between 14 and 16. It is linked with organized crime and drug trafficking even in places where prostitution is legalized and regulated. None of these are activities that governments should encourage.Lets look at some further reasons why governments should work to minimize prostitution. Legislation Helps Protect Society There are many health issues relating to promiscuity. Prostitution maximizes these issues. First lets look at Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Most STDs have an incubation time before they can be diagnosed. This means that a prostitute (lets say 2 partners daily) who will test positive for HIV after 3 weeks, may infect 42 customers before it is possible to detect that she is infected. There is no way to 100% prevent the spread of STDs. Here are some other medical risks of promiscuity: Prostate cancer, Cervical cancer, Oral cancer, Heart disease, Domestic violence, Unwanted pregnancy, Birth defects[9] There are consistent links to organized crime and use of illegal drugs. I assume we are agreed that organized crime and illegal drug use should be reduced if possible. The link between organized crime, human trafficking, illegal drug use and prostitution is made clear in a position paper from the London School of Economics. [10] Here are some points to ponder from that paper. * "legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industries" * "wherever prostitution is legalized, trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increases" * "prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons" * democratic political regime experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking. It is inaccurate to think of prostitution as a single experience. In countries where it is legal there are freelance workers, brothel workers, workers with a "manager". Many of the low end / low price workers are getting money for drugs. In Germany there is a huge problem with "narco prostitution" as the workers are in poor health, and many are victims of rape, murder and violence. In round 2 I plan to cover the issues listed below. Although I am against unnecessary government intervention, I believe the best way to reduce the harm done by prostitution is to criminalize the purchase of prostitution (Target the Johns as opposed to the sellers). Trades training could be offered to the sellers of sex services as a way to get them out of the sex business. FOR ROUND 2 Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade Medical Expenses for Participants Medical Expenses for "Second Hand" Victims[1] http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com...[2] Summa Theologica: Part II of book II, question 10, article 11 http://www.newadvent.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dw.de...[5] http://www.theglobeandmail.com...[6] http://www.examiner.com...[7] http://www.theguardian.com...[8] http://www.taz.de... Translated by Google[9] http://voxxi.com...[10] http://dx.doi.org... |
2 | e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00001-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Safe Sex Education in Schools In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of th... |
21 | ab411082-2019-04-18T12:46:11Z-00001-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate change Wait. .. .. so your pro for climate change, or yo agree with it and your now against it? The title says "Climate Change," and your for it and now you changed your mind. |
24 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
42 | b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org... |
36 | edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is a sport ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro! |
7 | 5d677fad-2019-04-18T11:39:11Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | We should redo the death penalty. QUESTION: With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions? My opponent offers a new system.I think it is problematic: 1.Juries are not always right, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still up to opinion. If I think you did something, that's beyond my reasonable doubt. One person might say "Guilty!" and another might say "Not guilty!" Both feel like they know the answer. This shows that beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective. 2.The death penalty is biased against black people. "The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black." https://www.commondreams.org...... Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit: "African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in "group exonerations." We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. I. Murder : Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people." http://www.law.umich.edu...... Furthermore: "Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable, yet between 1973 and 2004 in the US, 118 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were later released on grounds of innocence [8]. Of 197 convictions in the US that were subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence, 14 were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row [9]. Racial bias in sentencing likely accounts for much of this error; more than half of the exonerees were African Americans, and the rate of death sentences in the US among those convicted of killing a white victim is considerably higher than for murderers of blacks. Given this potential for fatal error, how can any objective person support the death penalty, which allows for no correction? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... If there is even a small possibility that someone innocent could die, we should not use such a system. 3.It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades." https://www.commondreams.org...... Furthermore: "According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole." https://www.forbes.com......... Death penalty = more $$ 4.Lethal injections are not humane. There is evidence that people feel pain as they are dying. One specific example is the botched execution in Oklahoma. "The current article by Koniaris and colleagues gives further cause for concern by questioning whether, even if "perfectly" administered, the protocols would achieve their stated aim of causing death without inflicting inhumane punishment... These lethal injection protocols use the barbiturate thiopental (intended to sedate and to suppress breathing), the neuromuscular blocker pancuronium (which paralyzes, causing respiratory arrest but also preventing agonal movements that might indicate suffering), and the electrolyte potassium (intended to cause cardiac arrest). Such protocols are intended to provide redundancy, such that each drug is given at a dose that would by itself cause death. However, in analyzing data from actual executions, Koniaris and colleagues report that thiopental and potassium do not consistently result in death. In fact, individuals undergoing execution have continued to breathe after the injection of thiopental, and their hearts have continued to beat following injection of potassium; in these cases, the authors conclude, it is quite likely that those being executed have experienced asphyxiation while conscious and unable to move, and possibly an intense burning pain throughout the body from the potassium injection." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... 1 & 2: No, it won"t. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty requires a long trial. Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting. ADeciding to use the death penalty in a case can cost more than jailing the person. 3, 4, & 5: The incidents you specify are horrendous but that doesn"t make the death penalty O.K. This is utter hypocrisy. How can we say "Don"t murder!" and then say "But we"re going to murder you." "6" Stepping in means jailing. It means cutting people off from society temporarily or permanently should the need arise. NOT murder. "7" That sort of thinking is abhorrent. Yes, they"re evil, but who are we to decide what to do with somebody else"s life? I"d rather nobody died but at the end of the day, if the person wanted to die they could do it themselves"they certainly don"t need the state. Saying we have the right to kill ANYBODY is absurd. "8" Are you saying this is population control? Murder is not the way we control population. "9" Alright, if you"re going to bring religion into this"fine. 1.The Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy quotes are from the Old Testament. Back then, times were very different. If you stole, they cut your hand off. This is because people believed harsh punishments deterred crime. Then Jesus came and he preached forgiveness. Your Matthew quote is taken out of context. If you read the whole thing it says: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Jesus says that we should love each other, not hate. He said don't do "An Eye for an Eye", instead we need to forgive. The Bible seems to understand that murder is not okay. How did they get it so right? 2.Bible says thou shalt not kill so how is murdering people acceptable by Christian standards? We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there? |
Subsets and Splits