query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
4 | b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00000-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Should corporate punishment be allowed in schools or academies Hi, Jack! nice to see ya! As you said, almost all of schools or academies use corporate punishment and many students don't really like that. But I think that's how it work, and corporate punishment is good for making students be quite, making students to follow teacher... |
31 | efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00014-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a public health issue . All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults. [1] Zahn, Theron, "Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads", seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] "Obesity 'could bankrupt the NHS'". BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm |
5 | 71803153-2019-04-18T14:35:42Z-00008-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media. If the statements do not name any specific person, threaten the lives of people or directly harass anyone the employee should be protected. Otherwise, it is a violation of free speech. Employees should be able to express their opinions without the threat of termination. shared BoP Opponent must prove that it is lawful for employers to terminate their employees for expressing their opinions or making blanket generic statements. Bullying and personal derrogatory insults will be considered direct harassment for this debate. |
46 | 1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00003-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin! |
8 | 6702c7e6-2019-04-18T13:16:45Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Thank you, Rightreform, for being respectful in this debate. This is my first debate as well, and by no means would I like you to take it easy on me. Oftentimes, it is argued that abortion is murder- a common argument. However, this is not the case. Nearly all abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy (about 12 weeks). This takes place when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her heath; thus, it cannot be regarded as a separate entity due to the fact that it cannot exist outside of the mother's womb. Also, studies have demonstrated that fetuses do not feel pain when abortions are performed. Neuroscientists have argued that because a cortex is critical in order to feel pain, and is not yet functional when most abortions are performed, the fetus is unable to feel any pain. The cortex only becomes functional around the 26th week of pregnancy (around the third trimester). Abortion can also give women the the option to minimize a child's suffering in the case that the child is born with severe birth disorders or defects that would result in the child living a difficult, painful life. Some of these disorders can be so severe that death is guaranteed after a short, painful life. For some, death imminent to birth is also a possibility. Furthermore, it is foolish to believe that simply making abortion illegal will keep people from getting them. (ie. Drugs are illegal, but people still obtain them, oftentimes with more dangers involved.) Abortions will still occur- however, they will occur illegally, and with significantly higher risk involved. Prior to the recognition of abortion and various advances in the field of medicine, back-alley abortions used to be performed via coat hangers, illegal/unregulated pharmaceutical products, knitting needles or a punch to the stomach. If there is no legal, viable alternative, couples or mothers will inevitably resort to these back-alley operations, which are both highly dangerous, and will likely prove deadly for the mother. |
23 | cf401f08-2019-04-18T15:17:34Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | euthanasia Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia." However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (http://www.all.org...) You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...) We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support" (Source: Farr A. Curlin, MD) and (http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...) Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, " "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." (http://www.bmj.com...) This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. |
41 | 66bd9185-2019-04-18T15:07:17Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Human-Emitted Greenhouse GasesIt is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [1]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [2][3]This excess CO2 traps heat. Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. [4]"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[5][6]CO2 correlates with temperature. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[7]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[8]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Indeed, it would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[9][10]This graph shows this: [5]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[5][11]This can be shown in the below graph: [5]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[12]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [13]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [14]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [15]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
5 | dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00005-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social security should be privatized. Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security? |
39 | 7245daba-2019-04-18T15:27:44Z-00006-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Raise the minimum wage I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time. |
6 | 844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00002-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Community college should be the first college people attend I argue that more people would benefit from going to community college first rather than going straight to a four year university.Definitions:Community College will be any college that is state/government funded and is a 2 year institution.By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.Argument:People should start with community college for a few reasons:>. Most community colleges have smaller class sizes compared to 4-year colleges (3).>. When the cost of community college is lowered, slightly more students enroll in college then they would have if tuition remained the same (1) According to the College Board's website, the average cost of community college for in-district students is $3,440 on average. A public 4-year college, accepting students in-state, is $9,410 on average (2).>. Community college was found to increase the number of people obtaining their Bachelor's Degree slightly (1).I would be convinced to the Con/Against side if someone could show why my sources are incorrect or what evidence there is to the contrary.Sources:1. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...2. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...3. https://www.educationquest.org...I look forward to debating with you. |
17 | fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal for recreational use I'd like to apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to submit my arguments at this time. |
18 | c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00007-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion Should Remain Legal Women should have the right to their own bodies, not the government. A fetus is not a human, it is a potential human. Because of that, a potential human does not have any rights. |
39 | 6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00002-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The federal minimum wage should be increased So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: "When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today." These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com... |
20 | f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has yet again forfeited. I will conclude that he could not think of a valid argument. |
16 | 965182fe-2019-04-18T12:07:01Z-00007-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be legalized. Legalize: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. |
10 | feda66c9-2019-04-18T14:53:20Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines do not cause autism I do not quite think my opponent understands my debate topic: vaccines do not cause autism. If this is my debate topic then the opposing simply has to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I did not ask whether high fevers in pregnant women cause autism but rather vaccines. definitions: cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result. According to this exact definition by thefreedictionary, the opponent is required to prove that VACCINES are responsible for a result(autism) For the purpose of the argument below, assume that the opponent's argument is valid according to my debate topic: Common side effects of vaccines include: injection site reactions (pain, swelling and redness) mild fever. shivering. fatigue. headache. muscle and joint pain. Therefore, we can conclude that a more severe and rare side effect is a high fever. A pregnant woman would be required or strongly recommended to get these vaccines to protect her unborn child: Rubella, Hepatitis B, flu, and whooping cough. According to the opponent's source, high fevers were not listed as any of the side effects for any of these vaccines, but rather simply a fever. Because the fever was listed as a mild side effect, one can assume that it is a mild fever. The opponent's source does not claim that any fever in a pregnant woman is linked to autism, but rather a high fever. Source [1] states: Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. Assume that a high fever is a severe allergic reaction. High fevers are said to be 103 F-104 F. If a pregnant woman goes against the odds and get's a high fever resulting from the vaccine and the baby gets autism, given the slim chance, the fever resulting from the vaccine CAUSED the autism, not the VACCINE itself. Since the source did not state that all cases of a high fever in a pregnant woman were due to the vaccine itself, it is safe assume that some of these cases are linked to influenza. According to the opponent's argument that the high fever resulting from the vaccine causes autism, would it also be safe to assume that high fever from the influenza virus is linked to autism as well? How about the fever as a result of a bacterial infection such as strep throat? Would that be linked to autism too? Conclusion: An accidental relationship is a correlation that exists without any causal relationship between variables. In this case, autism and vaccines are the two variables and there is an accidental relationship between these two. Does autism not occur in children at a very young age? About the same age that they receive vaccines? If so, it's entirely possible that these two variables have no real relationship and are simply coincidental that autism resulted after a vaccine. Below are credible, scientific studies that show that there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 1.http://www.cdc.gov... 2.http://www.cdc.gov... |
14 | 7432864f-2019-04-18T19:34:33Z-00007-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | People should not be named at birth >What I want to debate here is that naming of a human being at birth should not happen. I mean this extremely literally, nobody would have a name until a later point in life. >My argument is basically in four parts. They are as follows: 1. People may dislike the names given to them at birth 2. People could be given names at birth which would hinder them 3. People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality) 4. People deserve a choice in what their name is I will now briefly highlight each part. >My first argument is that people may dislike the names given to them at birth. This is the most simple of my concepts, and basically involves human decisions. Some people don't want to be named after their Grandfather, no matter how much their Mom thinks that it should be there name. >My second argument is that people could be given names at birth which would hinder them. To give a well known example of this, Courteney Cox and David Arquette chose to name their daughter Coco. Most people would be teased and harassed because of that name, and it demeans the person. To give a personal example, I have an uncle (no, I have not met him) formerly named Chandler who actually became a murderer because he couldn't stand his name and had a mental breakdown. I believe his name is now John and he is now a normal citizen. >My third argument is that people could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality). Parents do not know what a baby is going to be like at birth. Therefore, they cannot give their baby a fitting name. As a hypothetical, a baby could have a name meaning "fiery lord" but actually be a calm philosophical person. >My fourth and final argument (for now) is that people deserve a choice in what their name is. In many countries, people are given rights such as the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech. In how many countries can people choose their birth name? None. Now this is obviously because the baby cannot make decisions like that at such a young age but they can remain unnamed until they can truly make the right decision. To my opponent (whoever you are): Don't people deserve the right to choose their own name considering all of the other rights they have? >The last major thing I want to say is for clarification. In the system I am proposing, babies would be assigned numbers until a decision on what to name them was made. >I thank my opponent in advance for their response and wish them luck. Thank you all. |
45 | 6bd7aa3b-2019-04-18T15:57:23Z-00004-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs The resolution is clear: The United States should stay out of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries. [1]I am Con, meaning that I must show why we should not stay out of foreign affairs. My opponent is Pro and has the majority BOP to affirm his position beyond any and every counter-argument I make in regards to the resolution that the United States should stay out of foreign affairs. ArgumentsI. GlobalizationGlobalization is defined as the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets. [2]No one can argue that we are not moving towards a more globalized world. With the invent of the internet, mass cable television programs, and worldwide news sources, we are starting to see the world develop greater communication methods which indeed allow us to live in a newly globalized society. Even here on DDO, I am holding conversations with individuals from Pakistan, Germany, Britain, and Australia among other foreign countries. Just a few decades ago such communication would not have nearly been as possible with such ease. It goes further than that though, we as a Nation have international relations with almost every country in the world now partly in due to such advancements in globalized communication. We have corporations based in America which outsource to India, China, Pakistan, and other countries in terms of jobs. We have goods which we both import and export to and from our neighboring countries including energy resources such as oil as this image from an NPR article shows: [3] The article itself, which is linked in source reference #3 shows how America depends on several other nations other than just ourselves to maintain our current oil dependency. It is evident that the necessary trade practices, lines of communication, and maintaining good relations are all key elements that can be attributed to the success of America in terms of globalization. My opponent must show how ending such things would actually be a benefit to the United States as a whole, because if we are to affirm his position and end all of our foreign relations, surely a negative impact would be felt in all three factors. Maintaining our current position in regards to current affairs is key in our efforts of having positive relations with various nations around the world in this new globalized world. II. Maintaining dominance in the fields of Intelligence.What is the end-game of all of this? The borders between nations, the differing religions all striving for control over the souls of the masses, the extremist movements fighting for control over a certain region. Everything falls under the efforts for control. Control over the valuable resources, control over the strategic locations, control over the minds of the many. We can be good sheep and pretend this isn't how the world works, but let's call it how it is shall we? Our world is in a perpetual state of war over control. World-wide control. Every war has been over either land, influence, passion, or all three. I only hope my opponent is aware enough of how the world works to see the point I am now going to make:If we pull out of any and every foreign affair, we lose a significant advantage of knowing what is going on in this world. My opponent might have failed to realize the military advantage we as the United States have over most countries in this world in regards to how far-reaching our intelligence efforts really go. Essentially, if we were to remove ourselves from foreign affairs then that would include removing our embassies, relations with other international intelligence agencies, and our overall ability to sway political, corporate, or personal interests in our favor. We are in the age of advanced civilizations with immense technological capabilities including thermo-nuclear warheads such as Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba, which has a payload of 57 Megatons. In an article relating to that very bomb, "That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb. One explosion. And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done." [4]As my opponent can hopefully realize for himself, our current efforts in regards to our involvement in foreign affairs is vital to our ability of maintaining accurate and current developments in any country, be it technological advancements, political movements, dangers being posed to our imported resources such as oil, etc. Rebuttals I. Opponent lacks justification in his claims."the united states wastes its time intervening in the affairs of other nations. we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries in aid but it never gets anything done those countries go into chaos anyway..."My opponent makes this argument in his first round. The issue with this is that as Pro, my opponent has a burden to prove the accuracy of those claims. The only example he gives is of Egypt.How is Egypt in chaos right now due to American causes? This is a question my opponent will need to answer with evidence that can be considered valid. My opponent also said that we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries but with no results. I would think it wise that my opponent provide some evidence to back up this grandiose claim of his. As it currently stands, there is no reason we should take my opponents word as accurate when he has failed at providing any valid sources which would further give weight to his claims. II. Problems in Egypt = Problems everywhere?My opponent listed Egypt as an example. The problem with this, aside from what I pointed out just above, would be that problems emerging in one country does not justify the U.S. stopping it's foreign affairs in any other country aside from the one in question - in this case, Egypt. It does not hold that we should end all forms of foreign affair activities for the sole reason of supposed issues arising in one country.Until my opponent can show that every country we have foreign affairs with is worthy of being dropped from our agenda, I see no reason why this resolution should stand in favor of the affirmative position. In Conclusion, I have provided arguments and rebuttals which cover both my own position and attempt to negate the affirmative one. I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and now return the floor to him. Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.npr.org...[4] http://gizmodo.com... |
22 | 43033871-2019-04-18T18:23:44Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Policy Space Topic Contention 1 is Inherency: There is Currently No Brilliant Pebbles Program Cooper 02 (Henry F Cooper, Director, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization July 10, 1990 - January 20, 1993) (http://www.missilethreat.com...) In 1993, however, the Clinton Administration delivered a severe blow to U.S. missile defense by systematically eliminating Brilliant Pebbles through a series of budget cuts. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stated his objective as "taking the star out of Star Wars." The Administration did more than just that: it slashed missile defense funding across the board and replaced SDI with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Yet the technology itself would continue to be tested, for a short time: one year later, NASA launched a deep-space probe known as "Clementine," which had been built using first-generation Brilliant Pebbles technology. Clementine successfully mapped the entire surface of the Moon. The mission, which cost $80 million, effectively "space qualified" Brilliant Pebbles' hardware. All the same, no steps were taken by the Clinton Administration to resurrect the program. Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government Should Develop a Substantial Space Based Missile Defense System beyond Earth's Mesosphere We'll fiat and clarify upon request. Contention 2 is Harms and Significance The Status Quo Risks Nuclear War We'll Isolate 3 Scenarios First is Syria and Israel Syria and Israel Relations are on Brink Kershner 2010 [By Isabel Kershner, Reporter for the New York Times, Published: February 4, 2010 "Israeli Foreign Minister Adds Heat to Exchanges With Syria", http://www.nytimes.com...] JERUSALEM — Israel's blunt-talking foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, warned Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, on Thursday that the Assad family would lose power in any war with Israel, ratcheting up bellicose exchanges between the countries in recent days. In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, Mr. Lieberman said: "I think that our message must be clear to Assad. In the next war, not only will you lose, you and your family will lose the regime. Neither you will remain in power, nor the Assad family." That had to be the message, Mr. Lieberman added, because "the only value truly important to them is power." In an effort to calm the atmosphere, an aide to Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Mr. Netanyahu was "ready to go anywhere in the world, at any time, to open peace talks with Syria without preconditions." The aide, Nir Hefetz, added that Israel did not rule out assistance from any "fair third party" that could advance a peace process with Syria. Mr. Lieberman was responding to strident comments from Syria on Wednesday. Mr. Assad told the visiting Spanish foreign minister, Miguel �ngel Moratinos, that Israel was "not serious about achieving peace" and that the facts indicated that "Israel is pushing the region toward war, not peace," according to the Syrian news agency SANA. Furthermore, the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Wednesday that "Israel should not test Syria's determination," adding, "Israel knows that war will move to the Israeli cities." He implied that a conflict beginning in South Lebanon could also lead to an all-out war. Mr. Moallem made his comments in response to a strong statement made by Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, to senior Israeli Army officers on Monday, warning that "in the absence of an arrangement with Syria, we are liable to enter a belligerent clash with it that could reach the point of an all-out, regional war." Israelis understood Mr. Barak's remark as a plea for the Israeli government to start new peace negotiations with Syria, but the Syrians apparently interpreted it as warmongering. Israel's northern borders with Lebanon and Syria are quiet, but tense. The last Israel-Syria war was in 1973; Israel last fought Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia that receives support from Syria, in Lebanon in 2006. Israeli military officials have warned repeatedly that Hezbollah has been rearming, and they assert that Syria has been preparing its military to move from the conventional battlefield into missiles that can be aimed at Israeli cities. Mr. Lieberman said the Syrians had issued a "direct threat" to Israel that "crossed a line." "We cannot continue with business as usual," he said. Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli Army chief and defense minister, and now a senior member of the opposition centrist Kadima Party, described Mr. Lieberman's statements as "irresponsible." "They are liable to lead to verbal escalation or other types of escalation," Mr. Mofaz told Israel Radio. Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he is ready to talk to the Syrians without preconditions on either side. But Syria expects a guarantee from Israel up front that it is willing to withdraw from the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau that Syria lost in the 1967 war. There are sharp differences within Mr. Netanyahu's governing coalition, not least over whether a deal with Syria would succeed in removing Syria from the Iranian sphere. "Those who think that territorial concessions will cause a severance of the ties between Syria and the axis of evil are deluding themselves and avoiding reality," Mr. Lieberman said Thursday, referring to Iran with a term used by former President George W. Bush. Syria, he added, "will have to give up on its ultimate demand for the Golan Heights." Yet with the Palestinian peace process at an impasse, there have been increasing voices in Israel for a refocus on negotiations with Syria. "Because of the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only chance for generating change lies in the north," wrote the commentator Ari Shavit in Thursday's issue of the newspaper Haaretz. "There is no certainty at all that peace is in the offing," he continued. "But if it is, it is to be found not in Ramallah but in Damascus." The previous Israeli government, under the lead of Ehud Olmert of Kadima, held indirect talks with Syria through Turkish mediators, but they ended when Israel started its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians have refused to engage in direct talks with Mr. Netanyahu's government unless it carries out a total freeze of settlement construction, at least for a few months, including in East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu hinted on Wednesday that he was ready to engage instead in "proximity" talks with the Palestinians, via American mediation. "In the Middle East it sometimes takes three to tango, or at least to start to tango," Mr. Netanyahu told an audience at the annual Herzliya Conference. "Afterwards," he said, "I assume we can go on to dance as a couple." The Palestinians have not yet stated whether they are ready for indirect talks. Israel-Syria war causes extinction Joshi 2000 [Sharad. Post-Doctoral Fellow @ the Center for Non-Proliferation. "Israel's Nuclear Policy: A Cost-Benefit Analysis" Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal of the IDSA, Vol XXII, No 12. 2000, EBSCO//MGW-JV] Arab WMD Development A common argument is that the Israeli nuclear capability has led to the pursuit of WMD and ballistic missiles by some of the Arab states and Iran. This is only partially correct. The fact is that the Arab states have pursued such capabilities to counter each other also. The region's extraordinary complexity, the numerous actors, and the sources of conflict also have to be considered. 15 The resulting divisions in the Arab world have ensured that the chances of a combined Arab attack are low. The Syrian chemical arsenal should be considered, to a certain extent, as being a direct response to Israeli nuclear power, though it has other WMD arsenals to fear, such as Iraq's. In Syrian strategic thinking, chemical weapons are designed to offset Israel's conventional superiority in the event of war. A major Israeli concern is—a massive Syrian surprise attack with conventional forces on the Golan Heights. Syria possesses missiles such as the Scud-C (range 500 km) and the Scud-B (range 280 km) and also chemical arsenals for them like the powerful nerve agent VX. 16 These missiles armed with chemical warheads could strike airfields and mobilisation points, incapacitating these areas. With Israel denied air superiority, Syria could retake the Golan Heights. A simultaneous Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and the Gaza strip along with other Arab states attacking would make the situation particularly grave. Such a scenario would be ripe for a nuclear Armageddon. Further, both Iraq and Iran are known to possess vast quantities of WMD. In case of Iraq, UNSCOM has already shown how elaborate the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programme was, till the Gulf war. The deadliness of the arsenal had already been established, when Iraq used chemical weapons against its Kurdish population in the late 80s. The activities of UNSCOM in the past eight years notwithstanding, the technical knowhow is still present, and Iraq is capable of recreating its lethal arsenal. The important thing to understand here is that, till the time Israel maintains its nuclear arsenal, and the opacity surrounding it, the Arab states and Iran would claim justification for their own WMD stock. Further, Israel's nuclear arsenal might deter an Arab chemical attack but the danger of creating a linkage between the two categories of weapons is that the nuclear threshold is lowered to scenarios that may not be 'last resort' situations. Danger of Irrational Use A fear expressed regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons is that they could fall into the hands of irrational decision-makers in the Middle East, especially in a scenario where an Arab state might acquire nuclear weapons. There is belief that in case an Arab state achieves such a status, then in a confrontational situation, theories of deterrence, MAD may not work. One side assuming the inevitability of war may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike at the other's nuclear forces. On the other hand, an equally convincing argument would be that the high price as a consequence of mistakes in a nuclear weapons scenario, can also force parties to reconsider their course of action, and can also lead to pull backs, in spite of a loss of face. The US had withdrawn from the Bay of Pigs, likewise the Soviet Union withdrew their missiles from Cuba. 17 Risk of Actual Use The introduction of nuclear weapons in an already hostile region could increase the possibility of actual use of nuclear weapons in a tense situation. The continuous hostility of varying levels over the past five decades, might lead to the inclusion of nuclear and other WMD in existing "war-fighting" doctrines. 18 If the states in the region see WMD simply as weapons to be used in a conflict, the probability of these weapons being used increases drastically. The Arabs have tried to counter Israel's nuclear superiority, by developing a sizeable chemical and biological weapons arsenal. The greater the number of powers in a region possessing WMD, the greater the risk of escalation. Wars in history have more often than not been limited; but the main reason for this has been constraints due to resources and technological know-how. Instances are very rare of a war being limited due to considerations of the consequences of existing capabilities. 19 The indiscriminate effect of Weapons of Mass Destruction makes it very difficult to keep a war involving such weapons, limited. Future leaders may have less respect for the nuclear taboo, and may refuse to see the nuclear bomb as only a last resort, thereby increasing the risk. On the other hand, it could also be argued that development of battlefield weapons would not have the cataclysmic effects of bombing population centers. Nuclear Deterrence Against Terrorists Many of the threats that Israel has faced have not been influenced by the fact that it is a nuclear power. Atomic weapons cannot deter guerrilla attacks and they also cannot help in civil wars like the one Israel was involved in Lebanon. It could thus be argued that in the last 25 years, though there have been no conventional wars, Israel has still been forced into various other conflicts, which have threatened its security, and its atomic arsenal has been ineffectual. The Israeli nuclear doctrine is still based on the last resort option, though there have been moves towards battlefield nuclear capability also. But in situations that are less than last resort, deterrence has not really worked, even after taking into account any battlefield strategies that Israel might have developed. Further weakening of the deterrent has taken place as Israel is in control of Arab lands. This weakening has occurred as Israel's occupation is not just military but also national, ideological and territorial. The goal of conflict resolution is not helped by Israel's nuclear arsenal. The Pre-Emptive Strike Option In 1981, Israel successfully bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor. But in its goal of denying nuclear capability to anyone else in the Middle East, it can no longer attempt such pre-emptive air strikes. The most likely candidates to threaten Israel are Iran (which recently tested its Shahab-3 long range missile), Syria, and to a lesser degree, Iraq. At least the first two have undertaken measures like concealment, dispersion, hardening and installation of air defence equipment to prevent any Israeli air strikes. Since pre-emption is ruled out, therefore Israel may be forced to adopt a 'launch on warning' posture as it does not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first strike before responding. In turn Iran, Iraq or Syria, lacking secure second strike forces of their own would be under great pressure to launch their missiles first—another first strike posture. There could thus be a hair trigger alert scenario. The possibility of nuclear war breaking out by accident or design would be great and would place intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement and civilian morale. Second is Iran and North Korea Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Dareni 6-2-11 – Ali Akbar Dareini, Associate Press writer, "Iran: Missile progress shows sanctions futile," http://news.yahoo.com... Iran's defense minister claimed Saturday that the country's missile progress shows that U.N. sanctions are ineffective and won't stop Tehran's defense programs. The statement by Gen. Ahmad Vahidi comes during 10 days of war games in Iran's latest show of military might and displays what Tehran claims is growing self-sufficiency in military and other technologies. Vahidi said Iran's missile program is "indigenous" and has no reliance on foreign countries to meet its defense requirements. Iran is under four sets of U.N. sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or atomic weapons. Last week, Iran unveiled underground missile silos for the first time, making Iran's arsenal less vulnerable to any possible attack. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the country's most powerful military force, said the Islamic Republic has the ability to produce missiles with a greater range than those currently in its arsenal, but doesn't need to do so. The upgraded version of Iran's Shahab-3 and Sajjil-2 missiles already can travel up to 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers) — putting Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts Europe within reach. "The war games ... show Iran's great capability in designing, producing and using various kinds of missiles based on domestic knowledge. This showed that the sanctions imposed had no effect on Iran's missile program," Vahidi said in comments posted on sepahnews.com, the Guard's official website. Iran has periodically boasted of what it calls homegrown advances in technological sectors such as its satellite program and other scientific work. And Iran has all intention to attack the US Timmerman 08 (Kenneth R. Timmerman, Staff Writer, "U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.", July 29th 2008, http://www.newsmax.com...) Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. And Iran is Proliferating Bard '11 (Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Policy Analyst, "Potential Threats to Israel: Iran", June 27th, 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...) If Iran has nuclear weapons it can also pose an indirect threat by sharing the technology or an actual weapon with other Muslim countries or terrorists. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, including uranium mining and enrichment, under oversight by the IAEA, but Ahmadinejad raised worldwide concern about nuclear proliferation when he told the UN General Assembly in September 2005, " Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need." Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, repeated the proliferation threat several months later when he told the president of Sudan, "Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country....The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists." If Iran succeeds in getting a bomb, it will also create a potential arms race as Arab states see the need to obtain weapons to deter the Iranians. In fact, since 2006, 12 Middle East countries (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and the Gulf Cooperation Council) have either announced plans to explore atomic energy or signed nuclear cooperation agreements. All say they are only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear technology, but the fear is that some or all may follow the Iranian example and work toward building a bomb. North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons Bolton 7-14-2011 – John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, "North Korea edges toward next nuke test," http://www.washingtontimes.com... You wouldn't know it from the Obama administration, but North Korea's global threat continues to metastasize. South Korea recently concluded that extensive cyber-attacks against civilian and military targets in the South emanated from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Following China's lead in information warfare, the North is creating yet another asymmetric military capability it can deploy against its adversaries and also peddle for hard currency to other rogue states and terrorists. Although Pyongyang limited its targeting of this particular sortie to South Korea, the potential cyberwarfare battlefield is global and includes the United States, which already is the subject of extensive cyberprobing, exploitation and espionage by China. For a country perennially on the brink of starvation, North Korea's military foray into cyberspace demonstrates its continuing malevolence. The DPRK's nuclear-weapons program has not rested on its laurels, either, with widely observed surface-level preparations for a possible third underground test well under way. The North's development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads is also advancing apace, as Russian missile designer Yuri Solomonov highlighted last month in a Kommersant interview. This is hardly surprisingly given Iran's increasing long-range capabilities, the extensive Tehran-Pyongyang collaboration, and their programs' common base in Soviet-era Scud missile technology. Meanwhile, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan has released documents purportedly showing prior North Korean bribery of senior Islamabad officials to grease the transfer of nuclear or ballistic-missile technology. While their authenticity is disputed, the documents are part of Mr. Khan's continuing campaign to prove he did not act solo in the world's illicit nuclear-weapons bazaar. He long ago admitted supplying North Korea and Iran with critical nuclear technology. Pyongyang's unveiling in November of impressive new uranium-enrichment facilities at Yongbyon and recent construction there show the continuing fruits of Mr. Khan's entrepreneurship. His documents - and the many others he undoubtedly has in a shoebox somewhere - are worth verifying and actually might help Islamabad and Washington work together to repair their fractured relationship and prevent China from exploiting their current differences. Clearly, North Korea's weapons programs are not decelerating even amid intensive preparations for a possible transition of power, following Kim Jong-il's death, to a third member of the communist Kim dynasty. But faced with these challenges, the Obama administration has been not only publicly silent but essentially passive both diplomatically and intellectually. Only the Pentagon and the intelligence community, fortunately still implementing the Proliferation Security Initiative, have done much beyond noting pro forma that the troublemaking DPRK is still at it. And North Korea Is Proliferating Taylor 06 Jessica, correspondent, United Press International; "Expert Debate Space-Based Missile Defense Assets" United Press International; http://www.spacewar.com... |Cramer The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank, has issued a study saying the implementation of plans for space missile defense is critical for U.S. national security and an effective system against at least some intercontinental ballistic missiles from so-called rogue states should be in place no later than 2010. "The absence of a space strategy is a gap in national security," said Robert Pfaltzgraff, president of the IFPA, during a roundtable on the new report hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, a small conservative Washington think tank, last Friday on Capitol Hill. "Only space can give us a global missile defense." The threat is even more immediate, many fear, following several missile tests on July 4 by North Korea. While their long range Taepodong-2 ICBM was unsuccessful, several short range No Dong missiles appeared to work effectively in the tests. One of North Korea's main exports is weapons, and Pfaltzgraff said the United States should be increasingly concerned that these short range missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists aiming to launch them from domestic shores. The IFPA analysts claimed that U.S. ballistic missile defense must be revaluated in light of these developments. However, other analysts said the Bush administration has failed so far in adequately developing its BMD programs. And proliferation threatens regional stability Levinger 6 – Josh Levinger, Research Assistant with the Center for Future Civic Media at MIT, Fall 2006, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation Among the "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan," http://www.levinger.net... The real threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation is to regional stability. Introducing long range missiles and nuclear warheads into inflamed regions such as the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and East Asia, opens the possibility for accidental launch and rapid escalation. While the United States and the Soviet Union stared each other down at the nuclear threshold for decades, other adversaries may not have as advanced a military decision process, or the experience of living with the threat of total annihilation. The future of missile proliferation looks bleak, with the impending disintegra- tion of the NPT and the circumvention of the MTCR. On the other hand, the foreign market for budding missile designers appears to be booming. Perhaps there are job of- fers waiting for this graduating senior in Pyongyang, Tehran or Islamabad. This causes nuclear war Roberto L. Delgado 5, Colonel - United States Army, "WHAT SHOULD BE THE UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FOR NORTHEAST ASIA?", U.S. Army War College, 3-18, http://www.dtic.mil... The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by rogue nations is an issue that jeopardizes the security of our nation, people, deployed military forces, friends, and allies. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the world has become more unpredictable and volatile rather than predictable and peaceful. The instability in some countries and regions of the world has increased the interest of insurgents and extremists in obtaining WMD and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles, in order to coerce or topple the governments within their countries. To many nations and countries, ballistic missiles are an inexpensive and effective means to overcome an adversary's air defense system without having to use manned aircraft, lose trained personnel, and damage costly aircrafts. Missiles also require less maintenance, training, and logistics than manned aircraft. Ballistic and cruise missiles can also be armed with conventional or non-conventional warheads; even the limited use of these weapons could be devastating to any country or nation and their people. The United States, as the only global power, is a prime target for these players as they seek to destabilize the United States and its interests abroad through either the employment or threat of employment of WMD. Ballistic missiles, with the capability to deliver nuclear, biological, and chemical war heads cause significant anxiety in the United States and abroad. This causes extinction. Utgoff 02 — Victor A. Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses and senior member of the National Security Council Staff, 2002 ("Proliferation, missile defence and American ambitions," Survival, Volume 44, Number 2, June, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost Electronic Journals Service, p. 90) In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. Third is an Indo-Pak War India and Pakistan Relations are on brink now Ignatius 2011 (David, Staff writer for Washington Times, India and Pakistan on the Brink,http://www.washingtonpost.com..., 1/14/2011,AS) Everything is going right these days for India, except for one big problem: It is living next to a Pakistan that is coming apart politically, and Indian leaders insist with a tone of resignation that there's nothing they can do about it. Starting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, top Indian officials know that their booming democracy is endangered by the growing chaos across the border. They say that they're willing to revive back-channel negotiations with Islamabad to resolve the long-festering problem of Kashmir. They favor confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of war between these two nuclear-armed nations. And then, in the next breath, Indian officials insist that such positive steps won't make any difference. The Pakistani military doesn't want any reduction in tensions, they argue. The civilian government is crumbling and incapable of making a deal. Even Singh, long an advocate of better relations with Pakistan, is said to have concluded that hopes for better relations are "wishful thinking." A few hundred miles away in Islamabad, you'd hear the same bleak message from Pakistani military and political leaders. Yes, they know that the immediate threat to Pakistan is from Islamic militants, not India. Yes, they know that restoring a back-channel dialogue with New Delhi might ease tensions. But no, they don't see any way to step back from the brink. The Indians, in their view, are conspiring to undermine Pakistan. Welcome to the world's most dangerous zero-sum game. The sad fact is that India and Pakistan, separated at birth in 1947, are locked in what seems like a blood feud. You hear the same language of suspicion in prosperous New Delhi that you do in embattled Islamabad. I spent three days here talking with Indian leaders as part of a dialogue sponsored by the Aspen Strategy Group and the Confederation of Indian Industry. Discussing the India-Pakistan dispute with these officials reminded me of the fable of Tantalus, whose punishment by the gods was that food and drink were always just out of reach. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan is that elusive: You can imagine what the reduction of tensions would look like but you can't grasp it. This is a problem that might seem ripe for U.S. mediation. Washington has close ties with both countries, after all, and it could act as an honest broker on issues such as Kashmir, which is ruled by India but claimed by both countries. But Indians say that American intervention could just make matters worse - poisoning public opinion against any deal that emerged. U.S. diplomats are walking on eggshells: The Kashmir problem is so sensitive that American officials sometimes refer to it as "the K word," as if the very subject were unmentionable. Washington has gently encouraged dialogue between the two countries, but two meetings last year between their foreign ministers collapsed amid mutual recriminations. They will have another chance next month at a regional gathering in Bhutan, but nobody seems very hopeful. The Indians watch Pakistan's political instability with grim resignation. The root problem, they argue, is that the Pakistani military is unwilling to sever its links with Islamic terrorists. Until the Pakistanis break this insurgency, they will be at its mercy. Dialogue with India won't make any difference, they insist. "The last thing we want to see is Pakistan slide into instability," says one top Indian official, but he cautions that there is little that India or America can do. "It's Pakistan's internal problem. And that, we can't fix." As India celebrates its own economic success, there is a slight tone of South Asian schadenfreude about Pakistan's troubles. "There is one school of thought that says, 'If they [the Pakistanis] are committing suicide, then you don't have to murder them,'" the top official concedes. "But the consequences of that are horrible." I came away from these discussions feeling that Indian leaders are being shortsighted: If Pakistan descends further into violence and chaos, India will suffer from the fallout. And with these two bitter rivals, there is always the risk of nuclear war. If I were a newly prosperous Indian, I'd want to help my ailing neighbor as a matter of self-protection. But try making that argument to Indian officials. "You have to recognize that some problems can't be solved," counsels one prominent Indian. Officials here don't want American mediation, and they think outreach to Pakistan won't do any good. Meanwhile, the South Asian tinderbox keeps on getting hotter. That nuclear war would escalate rapidly Sethi 09 (Manpreet, PHD in International Studies, December 2009, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN SECOND TIER NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES: A CASE STUDY OF INDIA, Dr. Manpreet Sethi is Fellow, International Relations at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi. She is also Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, where she heads the Nuclear Security project. She completed her Ph. D from School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi in 1997 and was on the research faculty of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi from 1997-2001. http://www.csh-delhi.com..., AM) The first factor that is deemed to heighten nuclear dangers in the case of the two dyads under study is geographical proximity and a history of conflict. Located next to one another and sharing disputed boundaries, it is feared that any major breakout of conventional hostilities between India-Pakistan or India-China could increase the pressures for a pre-emptive strike or a nuclear attack being launched without proper confirmation. Moreover, since the missile flight times would only be between 8-13 minutes for missile ranges of 600-2000 kms, it would not allow either side to even use the hotline (assuming these were functional) to confirm the veracity (deliberate or accidental) or nature (conventional or nuclear) of launch. Haunted by the thought that the country that waited to use its nuclear assets might end up losing them to a disarming first strike would cause near immediate nuclear retaliation engulfing the nations in a mindless nuclear exchange. Indo-Pak war causes nuclear Armageddon Bidwai 08 [Praful Jouranlist and political analyst International The News, 12-26-08, http://www.thenews.com.pk...] Any India-Pakistan conflict is liable to escalate into nuclear war. In Nuclear Armageddon, there are no winners—only mega-deaths. Even a limited nuclear exchange will kill millions of civilians in both countries. The economic and environmental damage will set us back by decades. A single Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type bomb will kill 8 to 20 lakh people in a big city. India and Pakistan both have scores of such bombs, indeed even more powerful ones. In every conceivable war-gaming scenario—and many credible ones exist —, an India-Pakistan conflict has one inevitable outcome: full-scale war, in which Pakistan won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if it fears loss of territory. This will invite nuclear retaliation from India, with consequences too horrifying even to contemplate. And Note that even small threats pose great risk IFPA 06 – Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 report, Washington D.C., August 28, 2006 Twenty-first century threats to the United States, its de- ployed forces, and its friends and allies differ fundamental- ly from those of the Cold War. An unprecedented number of international actors have now acquired – or are seeking to acquire – missiles. These include not only states, but also non-state groups interested in obtaining missiles with nucle- ar or other payloads. The spectrum encompasses the missile arsenals already in the hands of Russia and China, as well as the emerging arsenals of a number of hostile states. The character of this threat has also changed. Unlike the Soviet Union, these newer missile possessors do not attempt to match U.S. systems, either in quality or in quantity. In- stead, their missiles are designed to inflict major devastation without necessarily possessing the accuracy associated with the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals of the Cold War. The warning time that the United States might have before the deployment of such capabilities by a hostile state, or even a terrorist actor, is eroding as a result of several factors, including the continued proliferation and widespread availability of technologies to build missiles and the resulting possibility that an entire system might be purchased out- right. Would-be possessors do not have to engage in the pro- tracted process of designing and building a missile. They could purchase and assemble components, reverse-engineer a missile after having purchased a prototype, or immediately acquire a number of assembled missiles. Even missiles that are primitive by U.S. standards might suffice for a rogue state or terrorist organization seeking to inflict extensive damage upon the United States. As the Rumsfeld Commission point- ed out in its 1998 report: Under some plausible scenarios – including re-bas- ing or transfer of operational missiles, sea- and air- launch options, and shortened development pro- grams that might include testing in a third country – or some combination of these – the United States might well have little or no warning before operational deployment. Contention 3 is Solvency: Brilliant Pebbles is ready now Pfaltzgraf and Van Cleave, 07 (Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf, Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University and President Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University. Independent Working Group, "Missile Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century", 2007, http://www.ifpa.org..., Manchester) A space-based KEI is designed to hit a ballistic missile in its boost phase, when the warhead(s) has not yet separated from the missile and is most vulnerable, as well as in the midcourse and high-terminal phases. Kinetic kill vehicles would be placed in low-earth orbit, where they would remain until a hostile missile launch was detected. For intercepts in the boost or terminal phases, a kinetic kill vehicle would accelerate out of orbit toward the missile which would be destroyed by direct impact. Midcourse intercepts would occur in space. Over a decade ago, the United States had developed technology for light-weight propulsion units, sensors, computers, and other components of an advanced kill vehicle. This concept, Brilliant Pebbles, consisted of a constellation of about 1000 satellites that combined its own early-warning and tracking capability with high maneuverability to engage attacking ballistic missiles in all phases of their flight trajectory. Each pebble was designed to identify the nature of the attack, which might include up to 200 ballistic missiles; and since it knew its own location and that of all other pebbles, each could calculate an optimum attack strategy from its own perspective and execute an intercept maneuver, while simultaneously informing the other pebbles of its action. This operational concept enabled a robustly viable, testable, operational capability that survived numerous scientific and engineering peer reviews in the 1989-90 time period, including by some groups that were hostile to the idea of missile defense in general, and space-based defenses But the technology was clearly established, supporting the Pentagon's approved acquisition plan that each of the pebbles would operate autonomously because each carried the equivalent of a Cray-1 computer and could do its own calculations for trajectory and targeting analysis. Each also had its own navigation sensors, allowing it to determine its location and the location of its neighbors – as well as to detect and track the target ballistic missiles and calculate a good approximation of what its neighbors saw.12 These pebbles would act as sensor platforms until all or part of the constellation was authorized to intercept hostile missiles. In fact, their infrared sensors provided the warning and tracking capability needed to alert the Brilliant Pebbles constellation enabling it to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost and subsequent phases of flight. The constellation would provide a redundant, and for some applications, superior capability than the geosynchronous Defense Support Program satellites used since the early 1970s as a key element of the U.S. Early Warning and Tactical Assessment system. Their small size, meanwhile, made them difficult to target, while their relatively low cost made them easy to replace. The autonomy of Brilliant Pebbles in detecting launch and undertaking interception complicated the use of countermeasures against their command and control. And because of the number of Brilliant Pebbles deployed in space, these defenses would have multiple opportunities for interception, thus increasing their chances of a successful intercept in either the boost or midcourse phases, or even high in the earth's atmosphere during reentry in the terminal phase. These characteristics stand in contrast to the current GMD interceptors which, in the limited numbers presently planned, may not provide more than one independent intercept opportunity. Although there has been no formal program to develop the key technologies further, advances in the commercial, civil and other defense sectors over the past decade will now permit even lighter mass, lower cost, and higher performance than would have been achieved by the 1990-era Brilliant Pebbles technology base. Thus, lighter weight and smarter components can now empower a Brilliant Pebbles interceptor with greater acceleration/velocity making possible boost-phase intercept of even short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. If the necessary investments are made to upgrade Brilliant Pebbles- type technology for the twenty-first century, boost-phase intercept from space will also be feasible against high acceleration ICBMs that would have exceeded the capabilities of the 1990 Brilliant Pebbles.13 And as noted above, the same sensor and kill-vehicle technology can be used for ground- and sea-based interceptors – notably on the VLS-compatible, high-velocity Navy SM-3 interceptor. Reviving and building on the Brilliant Pebbles concept and related technologies is essential for the deployment of effective SBIs, as well as improved interceptors for use in other basing modes, especially at sea. To move forward the United States must identify and exploit programs that were under development more than a decade ago. In other words, we should "go back to the future" as the point of departure for the increasingly robust missile defense that will be needed beyond what was initially planned for deployment in 2004-2005. Our engineers did it before, and can do it again to defeat the growing ballistic missile threat. One feasible option for testing and initial deployment of a revived space-based interceptor system based on Brilliant Pebbles would be to deploy, say, 40 to 120 interceptors for a space-system test bed analogous to the ground- and sea-based test beds. After demonstrating feasibility by testing against missiles of all ranges in all possible phases of their flight, this test bed would have a limited capability and could be expanded to become a fully capable defensive constellation. Based on the fully approved Defense Acquisition Board plan from 1991, an SBI system with as many as 1000 Brilliant Pebbles could be developed, tested, deployed and operated for twenty years with a low-to-moderate risk, event-driven acquisition program for $11 billion in 1990 dollars, or $16 billion when inflated to 2005 dollars. Brilliant Pebbles solves for all missile war – even scuds Cooper '02 Henry F Cooper, Director, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization July 10, 1990 - January 20, 1993 (http://www.missilethreat.com...) Smart Rocks was upgraded in 1988 and renamed "Brilliant Pebbles." In addition to eliminating incoming nuclear warheads, each component of the 4,000-satellite constellation was designed to protect U.S. space-based assets, attack its Soviet counterparts, or sacrifice itself in a one-time spy mission. The interceptor satellites would be controlled from the ground, but would also have the ability to communicate among themselves and attack their targets autonomously. At a projected cost of $11 billion for the first 1,000 interceptors, Brilliant Pebbles presented a cost-efficient means of countering the Soviet menace. In 1991, following several years of inner turmoil, the Soviet Union imploded. Despite the end of the Cold War, Brilliant Pebbles remained an essential part of the U.S. missile defense architecture. That same year, computer simulations demonstrated that, if it had been deployed during the Persian Gulf War, Brilliant Pebbles would have shot down every Scud missile launched by Saddam Hussein, including the salvo attack on Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Following the Middle East crisis, Brilliant Pebbles was enhanced to give its interceptors the ability to swoop down into the atmosphere, thus improving its overall effectiveness against Scuds and cruise missiles. |
50 | 3fdb3710-2019-04-18T12:55:31Z-00000-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal In debate, silence is confirmance. This shines true when my opponent has dropped topicality and has ceded to the argument being a priori, due to this concession, I win the debate. My opponent has also dropped my defense, meaning that, by defualt, I win the debate. Thank you and I urge a ballot in Negation. |
33 | 2e8edb4f-2019-04-18T15:53:37Z-00000-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism Forgive me for forfeiting. My opponent first addresses obesity. There is no reason to completely cut out meat out of your diet if you don't want to be obese. Just balance your diet and don't eat much fast-food. My opponent also addresses testosterone. I read his source and no where does it say anything about vegetarianism. It simply lists many problems result because of lack of testosterone. In fact, vegetarianism or lack of meat is the cause of lowered testosterone in many males. http://www.peaktestosterone.com... http://mentestosterone.blogspot.com... "If you eat meat, you are consuming hormones that were fed to the animals. No one knows what effect those hormones will have on your health." Well, nothing devastating is happening to people, so it's not quick-acting or obvious. There are many ways to avoid hormone-pumped meats: 1) Avoid fast-food 2) Buy organic meat There is no need to cut meat out of your diet. "Vegetarians are often more fit than people who eat meat because several of the worlds most successful athletes followed a strict vegetarian diet." My opponent lists some athletes that happen to be vegetarian and that is supposed to show fitness. That does not show any correlation between fitness and vegetarianism. I can list hundreds of successful athletes that are NOT vegetarian. In fact, most of the BEST athletes (those who earn 1st place in the Olympics for example) are not vegetarian. My opponent can start searching out all the gold-medal winners who are vegetarian but no matter how many he finds, there are always more that are meat-eaters. Also consider the fact that our bodies are made to eat meat. It is unnatural for us not to eat meat. http://listverse.com... Studies have shown that vegetarians lack the following nutrients: Calcium Iron Zinc Vitamin A Vitamin D http://chriskresser.com... Overall I do not see a single reason why people should cut meat out of their diet. There is no need to. Billions of people all around the world eat meat and are leading happy, healthy lives. Nature designed us perfectly, and nature made us omnivores, meaning we are MADE to eat meat. Then why shouldn't we? As long as its not the hormone-pumped, cholesterol filled meat that you get at McDonald's. There is no need to avoid meat. Thank you for the good debate. |
48 | 6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case. |
38 | c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana should be legal This is my god damn fourth, I REPEAT FOURTH TIME, that someone has quit on me. Just great. |
26 | b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00005-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests There needs to be a standardized test passed in order to qualify for high school graduation. |
19 | 2e0aacbd-2019-04-18T18:33:31Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | more guns less crime I'm bored so. .. Just bringing back Koopin's speaches. |
24 | 4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets I don't have time to do this right now. I've been swamped at work. My arguments were going to be, in short -- 1. Lowering taxes on the rich increases income inequality. Income inequality is a serious problem. 2. Economic inequality has a huge set of social harms associated with it. Under almost any value criterion except "GDP growth," I win the debate on this point alone (e.g. if you use a happiness index or something like that to measure policies). 3. It's not clear that the "economic growth" from lowering taxes outweighs the "economic harm" from inequality. There's tons of evidence showing inequality actually slows growth, and possibly slows it even more than lowering taxes increases it. Given the uncertainty there, I'd say it's a clear vote for Con in this debate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the arguments. I'm gonna leave it up to 16k whether he wants to tie the debate and do this another time, or whether he wants to accept a win. Up to him. I'm okay with either one -- not in this for the win stats. |
35 | 1ac69d5c-2019-04-18T13:30:47Z-00002-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violent video games and school shootings are related In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings. |
28 | 181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal. I don't know if my opponent had other matters to attend to. Thanks for the debate! |
9 | 4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00006-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | wearing a school uniform at school To my mind, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students don't need to wear school uniform at school. |
41 | 27aba745-2019-04-18T20:02:46Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest "student loans" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system. |
19 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
17 | 74e915ea-2019-04-18T12:17:43Z-00003-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Drug Legalization Re: IntroductionThett opens his round by misdirecting with a false claim:"The resolution is only affirmed if legalization is proven to be the ideal solution."I only have to prove that legalization is morally and/or pragmatically preferable to the alternatives, not that legalization is the best way to resolve all of the problems stemming from prohibition.Throughout his round, Thett fallaciously attempts to utilize my personal political leanings (libertarianism) to discredit my arguments, which in fact have no explicit relevance to the discussion. I have referred to the application of United States law/theory as-written and as it has been applied by various courts throughout American history, at which no point did we ever live under a libertarian framework. Re: States RightsThett presents a "majority rule" argument which has nothing to do with state's rights. He suggests that majority opinion is the basis for legitimizing government policy. Con ignores 1) a history wherein a majority of persons have agreed with policies that proved to be ineffective and often morally repugnant; 2) the impact government and institutionalized norms have on framing majority opinion; and 3) that U.S. government was specifically structured to prevent the tyranny of the majority, as explained by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 51.Thett's claim that nobody wants to legalize drugs is contradicted by his very own citation, which demonstrates that anywhere from 19% to 55% of Americans, depending on the drug in question, think other drugs besides marijuana should be legal or would not be opposed to legalization. Re: Usage and CostsWhile Thett's proposal of market theory is correct, it is only relevant if the availability of drugs would significantly increase upon legalization. I will prove that's untrue. I've already proven that prohibition has been a failure and drugs are readily available. Despite increased policing and money spent on the Drug War, the cost of illegal drugs has declined over the years [1]. Drugs have also gotten more dangerous, as producers look to reduce risk by shipping stronger doses in smaller batches [2,3]. Unregulated, people do not know what they are consuming and how much.Anyone with Internet access can order illegal drugs from customer-reviewed vendors on the "deep web." Johns Hopkins professor of computer science, Matthew Green, notes "The idea of a [darknet market] is something we're probably never going to be free of, as long as the mail system exists to actually deliver the products... I can imagine a world where major drug cartels run them directly, or indirectly, which would make it awfully hard for U.S. law enforcement to arrest the operators [4]." There are many resources that explain how to utilize and purchase drugs off the dark-web [5, 6] and detail how easy it is to get away with. One article describes it as "safe, easy and boring" [7]. These systems are not impenetrable, but U.S. authorities cannot stifle this billion-dollar trade. Many household items work as drugs, and there are tutorials on how to make drugs with legal products online [8, 9]. Thett advocates for the decriminalization of drugs, which like legalization would lower the cost of drugs. Later on I will detail how legalization would keep costs the same or higher than deregulation. For now let's discuss how economist Jeffrey A. Miron at Harvard University has thoroughly debunked Thett's claim that legalization increased exports or decreased price after the legalization of opium in China. "After controlling for pre-existing trends, there is little effect of legalization on opium exports. The results in column (1) indicate that exports from India to China were higher post-legalization. The results in column (2), which control for war periods, the price of rice, and population, are similar. The results in columns (3) and (4), however, show that after controlling for a linear or quadratic trend, the estimated impact of legalization is either small and insignificantly positive or small and insignificantly negative" [10].Miron's analysis concludes "China's legalization of opium in 1858 was not associated with a perceptible increase in opium consumption... the export data fails to provide even a hint that prohibition had reduced consumption" [11].Consider that in virtually every study/comparison, marijuana is deemed 'safe' for consumption while harder drugs are not [12]. The fact that more people in Colorado now smoke weed upon legalization, does not necessarily mean the number of people who use hard drugs would increase to the same extent upon legalization. Many people who accept the minimal risks of marijuana would not accept the risks of harder drugs, even without legal penalty. Furthermore, Thett hasn't explained how decriminalization is preferable to legalization in this regard. Next, Thett complains about the high cost drug users have on society. If Thett can argue that it's only due to current status quo policies that the Drug War has been such an abysmal and problematic failure, then we must acknowledge that it's only due to current status quo policies that society has been unfairly saddled with the issue of detrimental drug abuse. Policies can be amended to alleviate this burden, and society can promote other standards that protect people's rights, while simultaneously encouraging smart choices. One of the most obvious examples is to allow employers the legal right to continue drug testing their employees. Failed drug tests are the reason many people do not get hired, and avoid drug use upon hire. Thett ignores the routine method governments use as a method of deterrence: taxation. According to the US National Library of Medicine, "The evidence strongly supports increasing cigarette prices through tobacco taxation as a powerful strategy for achieving major reductions in smoking behavior" [13]. It also collects significant revenue for the State.Re: Legalization vs. DecriminalizationLegalization would allow the government to extract money from taxing the producers and consumers of drugs. Additionally, federal and/or state governments may assume direct control over who the drug producers are, where they produce, how much they produce, and what their methods are (i.e. through farming or chemical composition regulations). This type of regulation promotes safe consumption, and allows the tax payers to extract revenue from the widespread, illegal practice.With legalization, drugs would be produced and sold on a commercial basis. They would become standardized products, and companies that sold dangerous and addictive products would do so under several legal constraints, such as liability and negligence law. Further, there would be strict regulation and licensing requirements like other businesses. As a result, there would be fewer options than compared to a simply decriminalized market. If Thett wants to keep the cost of drugs high, he would support legalization over decriminalization. Under decriminalization, there are no government restrictions or regulations on production processes, and because of this costs and prices fall as drugs reach the market sooner. In legalized systems, government control businesses with criminal codes. Laws regulate unsafe practices. For example legalized prostitution in Nevada requires regular health checks and registration of health status. This makes dangerous practices safer, one of the primary arguments for abortion remaining legal.Thett's supposition that the FDA could not figure out how to regulate drugs is a completely baseless and unsubstantiated claim that must be dropped. He's failed to explain how or why they couldn't regulate additional drugs the way they already regulate legal ones.Re: PortugalMy opponent misquotes me in an attempt to convince the audience I have been misleading. Nowhere in the last round did I claim that Portugal legalized drugs. In fact, I specified they decriminalized drugs not once, but twice. It is abundantly clear that my opponent's tactics rely primarily on manipulative rhetoric.My argument was that decriminalization in Portugal has led to less crime, less disease and less death. Furthermore, I showed that decriminalization led to more people seeking treatment for drug addiction. Both of these results are completely relevant to the lack of criminalization, which applies to both decriminalization and legalization. Thett argues that decriminalization allows for useful penalties, such as mandatory drug rehab or community service. You can aboslutely penalize drug users in the same ways IF they are convicted of another crime, such as aggressive behavior or driving while intoxicated.Re: Medicinal DrugsCon seems to go on an irrelevant moral tangent regarding people's personal decisions.Nobody said legalization necessarily means over the counter usage. Legalization means the legal sale of, which can rightfully include various forms of regulation. For example Oxycontin is legal but not completely unregulated. Legalization encourages regulation; deregulation (as its name implies) does not. Legalization is safer and makes drugs more expensive.One of the worst harms of criminalization is that it stifles the research and development of various drugs as legitimate medicine. Re: My Case on AlcoholThett has completely failed to prove that alcohol is safer than other drugs. He wrongly claims that alcohol is only more dangerous BECAUSE it is legal, which is unabashedly false. Alcohol encourages aggression and violence by disrupting normal brain function in areas of the brain that promote aggression [14, 15, 16, 17]. There is no evidence to indicate that other drugs encourage aggression in the same way. The majority violence that correlates with drugs specifically derives from the criminalization of drugs - namely the associated gang and cartel violence, which would largely cease under legalization. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com... |
34 | cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are beneficial Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that "Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes." Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that "Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period." As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, "I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks." In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org... |
42 | 27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. "Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. "There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because "it won't do anything". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans "will just end up fighting" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck. |
5 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan Let me note before my argument that I have PLENTY more stats and arguments to state but I will include that in my next argument these are just SOME of the reasons why Lebron is better I think lebron James is the best player in NBA history for many reasons , before I even get into the mutitude of stats and such that prove my point let me just say one thing , Jordan is a great player , in fact the second best player of all time , but Jordan could not take over a game in the many different ways Lebron does , Lebron can get everyone in loved and when he is on the court it is always 1 vs 5 until Lebron gets his teammates involved through his great play because we all know Lebron never has amazing teammates like Jordan did ( I will get into that in my next argument ) and the one thing even Lebron haters or Jordan lovers or at least anyone with a working brain will know is that Lebron is the most dominating physical specimen that has ever been in the history of all sports since the beginning of time ! Lebron is a better athlete than Jordan and a better all around player even the professionals who ride the Jordan bandwagon will admit that , that's obvious , no one can ever compare to lebrons physical ability . Now , since that is out of the way , Lebron is the all time SF assist leader and will most likely end up in the top 5 or 10 in assists leaders of all positions , lebron spreads the floor like no other player in the history of the sport , just like Scottie Pippen said , when lebron james is on the court , everyone is a threat to score . When Jordan played he was and still is the best scorer of all time but he didn't have the vision lebron has , it's not because of Jordan's amazing carrying abilities that no one on his team scored in double digits most of the time , it's because Jordan had the ball more than anyone by far and more time then not , he shot . That's why lebron is better in all around offense , lebron has a better FG% than Jordan because if he doesn't have a good shot he can throw a 40mph pass to a big down low that no one would consider open before that but lebron can get the pass in , or he can pass it across court to the open man at the 3 . Jordan , when he couldn't get a good shot off , he would still shoot it and miss most the time . Lebron all around offense , is better , lebron can get offensive boards , pass , and execute plays better than Jordan . On the defensive end , Jordan's DPOY doesn't mean anything when compared to lebron , back then lebron would have won multiple DPOY's , lebron can guard every position , he can guard 1-4 and lock down if he needs to and if he needs to be can guard a center for a play and have a pretty good chance against him . Jordan can only guard the SG and PG and the occasional SF but most were too big and strong for him , Jordan could steal the ball better than lebron but lebron can get boards and block better than Jordan , for example Lebron's signature chase down block . Now when the argument of who's more clutch comes , Lebron's most resent buzzer beater officially ties jordan for career made shots in the last seconds of a playoff game . And Jordan got almost all of his after he was 30 , and lebron is 30 now so lebron of you wanna be realistic , will end up getting more buzzer beaters than Jordan , and lebron in the lat 15 seconds of a game , has a better percentage than Jordan . So statistically and technically lebron is more clutch than Jordan ESPECIALLY in the playoffs . Unlike Lebron , without good teammates Jordan was HORRIBLE in the playoffs , did you know before Pippen joined him MJ was 1-9 in the playoffs in his career , 1-9 ! !! ! Lebron has NEVER LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS ! He is the first player since the legend celtics to go to 5 finals in a row ! Jordan couldn't even get past the first round without Pippen ! ! Lebron is the best playoff player in the history of the NBA he just recently passed Jordan in amount of 30-5-5 playoff games with 52 but he has gotten more since then which means he has around 53-55 Jordan has 51 and lebron is no where near done in the playoffs ! 2 playoff games ago lebron put up numbers no other player in the NBA history has ever gotten , he just put up 37-18-13 IN THE PLAYOFFS ! No player has ever put up those numbers IN THE SEASON OR PLAYOFFS EVER ! Lebron is the best player ever when it comes to playoffs in the history of the NBA and you cannot argue that cause crushing I've said is facts . Lebron has countless records already over Jordan but j only have like 15 more minutes to answer this so i can't go into all of them until next round ! Lebron has the better per game stats than Jordan he averages more blocks steals and rebounds than Jordan for their careers after this past season stats get out into Lebron's career averages , lebron has somewhere just over 60 career playoff triple doubles in his 9th playoff appearance , Jordan has 39 after his 13th playoff appearance , lebron is ranked number 1 in NBA history with the highest scoring average per game on elimination playoff games with 31 , he is number 1 in games in the playoffs with at least 25-10-5 with 32 times , lebron took 726 games to reach at least 20,000 points and 5,000 assist , Jordan took 926 , Scottie Pippen told Alonzo mourning that lebron would " kick michael Jordan's *** in basketball , lebron has 159 10+ assist games , Jordan has 88 , lebron is the only player in history to reach 2,000 pts , 500 rebounds , 500 assists , and 100 steals for at least 7 seasons in a row , Jordan has only 2 of those seasons and there not even in a row , those were just his two best seasons , lebron has the most 30 point triple doubles Ever with 19 and Jordan has 17 , lebron is 60% in the last 5 seconds of the 4th quarter or overtime , Jordan is 45% , NOW MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS NEXT PART . .. . ALL OF THE STATS I JUST POSTED WERE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAST SEASON SO AMOST ALL OF THESE STATS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AND BIGGER SINCE THEN INCLUDING THE PLAYOFF STATS BECAUSE LEBRON HAS BEEN AMAZING THIS PLAYOFFS , all of Jordan's stats are never getting better , his career is over , lebron has at least 5-8 more seasons so he will surpass MJ in almost everything . Scottie Pippen said out of his own mouth , " Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play the game , but Lebron may be the greatest player to ever play the game . .. No guy is not a threat when Lebron is on the court. " Skip Bayless of First Take said " Lebron is a better all around player than Jordan . He has more skills than Michael . " Stephen A Smith replied " we know that " Another debate Skip and Stephen also had was that skip thought MJ could guard Lebron and Stephen A Smith replied " you must be crazy , too big , too strong , too much of a locomotive coming at him , now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wouldn't be Michael Jordan , but if that's the case , why did Michael Jordan need Scottie Pippen to defend Magic Johnson when he won the world championship the first time around ? " which proves that MJ couldn't guard Lebron , Stephen A went on to say that Magic Johnson's athleticism doesn't scratch the surface of Lebron's . And the flight man himself has said he was guarding Lebron , he can't stop Lebron from driving to the right and going to the hole on him . Lebron is the best all around player of all time and that is a fact based on his stats , he can literally do everything . Now listen I understand Jordan is 6/6 in the finals it's obvious your gunna bring that up anyone would unless they're horrible at debating but I will address the 6/6 in the finals in my next argument but lebron will win 6 finals if not more in his career , and definitly have all of the finals MVP's unlike Kobe . Now I am going to paste a list of Lebron's career accomplishments REGULAR SEASON RECORDS 1st place all-time in career assists by a forward. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Week with 48 nominations. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Month with 29 nominations. 2nd place all-time in points scored in All-Star games with 278. Behind Kobe Bryant's 280. Only player in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists for their career. [24] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in four consecutive seasons. [25] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in a single season for at least seven seasons. [26] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, and 500 assists in a single season for at least seven seasons. [27] Only player in NBA history to win the NBA Player of the Month Award four times in two consecutive seasons. [28] Only player in NBA history to change teams after averaging at least 27 points, twice. [29] Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for 11 consecutive seasons. [30] One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for six consecutive seasons. [31] Includes Oscar Robertson, who achieved this eight consecutive times. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists in a single season for at least eight seasons. [32] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists in a season for at least six seasons. [33] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards in a span of five years. [34] Includes Bill Russell. One of two players in NBA history to win at least two NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for two different franchises. Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. One of two players in NBA history to lead NBA Finals in scoring, but play on a different team the following season. [35] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic Gold Medal in the same year. [36] Includes Michael Jordan (1992). One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in two consecutive seasons. Includes Michael Jordan. One of three players in NBA history to average 25 points per game for 11 consecutive seasons. Includes Jerry West and Karl Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP with a team, leave, and then come back. [37] Includes Allen Iverson and Moses Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, twice. [38] Includes Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 2000 points in a single season for at least nine seasons. [39] Includes Karl Malone (12 seasons), Michael Jordan (11), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (9). One of five players in NBA history to score at least 10 points in 500 consecutive games. [40] Includes Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Karl Malone. Currently 3rd all-time on the list with 641 games. One of five players in NBA history to win consecutive Finals MVP Awards. [41] Includes Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Kobe Bryant. One of five players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. [42] Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain. One of five players in NBA history to change teams after leading the league in triple-doubles. [43] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Lance Stephenson. One of five players in NBA history to score 50+ points multiple times for two different teams. [44] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Pete Maravich, Bernard King, and Carmelo Anthony. One of six players in NBA history to average at least 27 points for their career. [45] Includes Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Kevin Durant. One of eight players in NBA history to lead a franchise in points, assists, and steals. [46] Includes Kevin Garnett, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Randy Smith, Isiah Thomas, and Dwyane Wade. SeasonEdit Only player in NBA History to win the NBA Player of the Month Award five times in a single season. [28] Only player in NBA history to post 30 or more points and shoot over 60 percent for six consecutive games in a single season. [47] One of two players in NBA history to receive all but one vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award in a single season. [48] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 30 points and 10 assists in a calendar month while playing at least 10 games. [49] Includes Russell Westbrook (achieved this twice, in one season) One of three players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists in a single season. [50] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this five times) and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists in their rookie season. [51] Includes Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Tyreke Evans. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 31 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. [52] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this twice), Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to lead their team in all five major statistical categories (total points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals) in a single season (2008"09 season). [53] Includes Dave Cowens (1977"78), Scottie Pippen (1994"95) and Kevin Garnett (2002"03). One of six players in NBA history to record 2,000 points and 600 assists in a single season. [54] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this seven times), John Havlicek (achieved this twice), Tiny Archibald (achieved this twice), Derrick Rose, and Michael Jordan. GameEdit Only player in NBA history to record at least 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists in a game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 31 points, 19 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in a game. One of three players in NBA history to record at least 33 points, 12 assists, and 9 rebounds in a game. Includes Michael Jordan and Nate Robinson. One of four players in NBA history to record at least 61 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists in a game. Includes Michael Jordan, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady. PlayoffsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time being a leader in points, rebounds and assists on 37 occasions. 24 more games than next player on the list Larry Bird with (13). 1st place all-time for scoring average in game 7s with 34.4 points per game. 1st place all-time for scoring average in elimination games with 31.7 points per game. [55] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 88. [56][57] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 39. [56][58] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 58. 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 28. [59][60] T-1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists with 8. Tied with Oscar Robertson. 2nd place all-time for consecutive 20-point games to start a playoff career with 19. [61] Behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 27 consecutive games. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the playoffs with 14. Behind Magic Johnson's 30 triple-doubles. 3rd place all-time for consecutive 20-point playoff games with 54. [62] Behind Wilt Chamberlain's 126 and 92 consecutive games. T-3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 45 points with 7. [63] Tied with Allen Iverson. Behind Michael Jordan (23) and Wilt Chamberlain (8) 3rd place all-time for scoring average in first 150 playoff games with 28.1. [64] Behind Michael Jordan and Jerry West. 3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 30 points with 80. Behind Michael Jordan (109) and Kobe Bryant (88). 3rd place all-time for free throws made in the playoffs with 1,273. Behind Michael Jordan (1,463) and Kobe Bryant (1,320). Only player in NBA history to shoot at least 50 percent in 9 consecutive playoff games while attempting at least 15 FGs. [65] Only player in NBA history to average 28 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists in their playoff career. [66] Only player in NBA history to record 5,000 points, 1,500 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in their playoff career. Only player in NBA history to play 20 playoff games in 5 consecutive seasons. One of three players in NBA history to average 30 points and 10 rebounds when facing elimination. [67] Includes Wilt Chamberlain and Anthony Davis. One of nine players in NBA history to play in the NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey. Single PostseasonEdit Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 16 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason. [68][69] Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 14 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason, multiple times. [68][69] One of two players in NBA history to average 30 points, 11 rebounds and 8 assists per game in a single post season. Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to record 600 points, 200 rebounds, and 100 assists in a single postseason twice. Includes Larry Bird. SeriesEdit Only player in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists in a playoff series (2015 Conference Finals vs. Atlanta Hawks). [70] One of five players in NBA History to average at least 33.8 points and 7.3 assists in a playoff series. Includes Michael Jordan (achieved this three times), Jerry West (achieved twice), Tracy McGrady, and Stephen Curry. GameEdit Most consecutive points scored for a team in a playoff game with 25 consecutive points at the Detroit Pistons on May 31, 2007. [71] Only player in NBA history to score at least 49 points in a playoff game for two different franchises. [72] Only player in NBA history to record at least 37 points, 18 rebounds, and 13 assists in a playoff game. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists in a playoff game. [73] Includes Wilt Chamberlain. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in their playoff debut. [74] Includes Johnny McCarthy and Magic Johnson. NBA FinalsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time for triple-doubles with at least 30 points in the NBA Finals with 3. 1st place all-time for three-point field goals attempted in the NBA Finals with 167. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the NBA Finals with 6. Behind Magic Johnson's 8 triple-doubles. T-2nd place all-time for three-point field goals made in the NBA Finals with 55. Tied with Ray Allen. Behind Robert Horry's 56. Only player in NBA history to play in five consecutive NBA Finals, doing so with different teams. One of three players in NBA history to play in the All-Star Game and NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. SeriesEdit Most points scored in first three games with (123) in 2015 NBA Finals. 1st place all-time for most points scored and assisted per game in an NBA Finals series with 57.7[75] 2nd place all-time for highest percentage of team points in an NBA Finals series. [76] Behind Michael Jordan's 38.4%; James accounted for 38.3% of his team's points in the 2015 NBA Finals. Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists in an NBA Finals series (accomplished this three times). [77] Only player in NBA history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finals series. Only player in NBA history to average 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists in an NBA Finals series. James averaged 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, 8.8 assists in the 2015 NBA Finals. One of three players in NBA history to score 40 points in at least three games in a single NBA Finals series. Includes Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. GameEdit T-1st place all-time for points scored in an NBA Finals Game 1 loss with 44. Tied with Shaquille O'Neal. Only player in NBA history to score at least 40 points and record at least half of his team's assists in an NBA Finalsgame, achieved this twice in a single NBA Finals series. [78] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in an NBA Finals game. [79] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 14 rebounds, and 11 assists in an NBA Finals game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 32 points, 18 rebounds, and 9 assists in an NBA Finals game. One of two players in NBA history to produce outright game highs of points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finalsgame. [80] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 35 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists in an NBA Finals game. [81] Includes James Worthy. One of two players in NBA history to record a triple-double with at least 40 points in an NBA Finals game. [82] Includes Jerry West. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an elimination game in an NBA Finals game. [83] Includes Bill Russell and James Worthy. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in Games 6 and 7 of the NBA Finals in the same season. [84] Includes Jerry West (achieved this twice), Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. One of five players in NBA history to score at least 40 points in a regular-season game and then do it again against the same opponent in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [85] Includes George Mikan, Jerry West, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant. One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an NBA Finals clinching game. [86] Includes Magic Johnson (twice, 1982 and 1985), Larry Bird (1986), James Worthy (1988), Tim Duncan (2003), and Draymond Green (2015). One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [87] Includes Wilt Chamberlain (1967), Walt Frazier (1972), Dave Cowens (1976), Magic Johnson (1991), and Jason Kidd(2002). Youngest player recordsEdit James owns numerous NBA "youngest player" records. He is the youngest1 To be selected #1 overall draft pick (18 years of age). [citation needed] To be named NBA Rookie of the Year (19 years of age). [citation needed] To score most points by prep-to-pro player in their professional debut with (25) To record a triple-double (20 years, 20 days). [88] Recorded 27 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists on January 19, 2005 vs. Portland Trail Blazers. To record a triple-double in the playoffs. (21 years, 113 days). [citation needed] Recorded 32 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists on April 22, 2006 vs. Washington Wizards. To score 30 points in a game (18 years, 334 days). [citation needed] Recorded 33 points on November 29, 2003 vs. Memphis Grizzlies To score 40 points in a game (19 years, 88 days). [citation needed] Recorded 41 points on March 27, 2004 vs. New Jersey Nets. To score 2,000 points in a season (2004"05). [citation needed] To average at least 30 points per game in the NBA. To be awarded All-NBA honors (2004"05). [citation needed] To be named to the All-NBA first team (21 years, 138 days). [citation needed] To win an All-Star Game MVP (21 years, 55 days). [citation needed] To lead the league in All-Star voting (22 years, 26 days). [citation needed] To score 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons (26 years of age). [citation needed] To win Most Valuable Player award four times (28 years of age). [citation needed] To reach 4,000 playoff points (29 years of age). [89] To reach 5,000 playoff points (30 years of age). Every point milestone from 1,000 up to 24,000[90][91][92][93][94][95] |
48 | 89c53180-2019-04-18T18:45:51Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lower the legal sex age In my opinion the legal age for two people, or maybe three, to have sexual intercourse should be lowered to the ages of 11. i belive this to be acceptable as children are being educated about this by the ages of 5 so they must surely be mature enough to what they are letting themselves into as they have known about it for 6 years now. Some say it should be lowered to 5 as they now know about it from this age but they haven't had the experiences to now what the real reason behind it should be, love. |
37 | f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00000-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phone being banned while driving Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the previous round. Arguments extended. I urge a Con vote. Thank you. |
20 | 349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00005-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no "One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures," Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the "milk mustache", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. "But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones." (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3) |
32 | 44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge! |
45 | 5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Drugs Should Stay Illegal Well that was not appropriate behavior, M'kay? Now drugs are bad M'kay. Marijuana is also bad M'kay? You don't want to be stupid, M'kay? |
36 | a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00006-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of "sport" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in "A source of diversion" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, "sexual play" refers to the use of "sport" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition "physical activity engaged in for pleasure" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a "relaxed canoe trip" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a "relaxed canoe trip" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is "okay exercise." By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging. |
31 | 6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity It seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, "Does fast food cause obesity?" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain. This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating. What Does the Research Say? Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Beside "fast food" there are another causes of obesity: Lack of Energy Balance A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT. Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active. Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use. An Inactive Lifestyle Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity. Environment Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include: •Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active. •Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity. •Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly. Genes and Family History Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese. Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment. Health Conditions Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak. Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods. People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat Emotional Factors Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity. Smoking Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking. Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain. Lack of Sleep Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well. People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity. Sources: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... http://weight-loss.emedtv.com... |
28 | f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized Prostitution should NOT be legalzed. Prostitution is the selling of one's body for a profit. There is NO need to sell a body. To be able to sell one's body that body must be seen as property and we haven't viewed people as property since slavery. |
13 | 9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00073-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Solar energy Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions |
26 | 9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | State Standardized Tests Let it be noted that Con has avoided all my points in round 1 and has also dropped his opening argument from round 1. Concerning his new argument...---Point 1: There are no facts.Rebuttal 1: This is demonstratably false. There are facts. The effects of gravitation are factual; they are not opinion. If Con does not believe that gravitation is factual, he can test his claim by jumping off a building. If the attraction of masses is nothing more than opinion, he will suffer no harm.Another example of a fact is that triangles have three sides. If this were simply an opinion, it would be possible to draw a triangle that does not have three sides.By similar reasoning, it can be demonstrated that certain other things are true regardless of individual opinion.Con also uses tautological example, citing the proportion of water on the earth's surface. He claims that because we do not know exactly how much water there is, we don't know anything at all. This is absurd and off topic.. The goal of science is to describe what appears to be reality, not to identify exactly what it is. Nothing in science is exact, but that has not prevent us from technological developments.Point 2: Humans make mistakes.Rebuttal 2: They do. That does not mean everything they've done is wrong. My computer works just fine. |
32 | 70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00009-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Banned from voting.... I've been banned from voting on debates. I believe it is because I have not paid my Ivory Tower dues, as in debt to the establishment. You would ban my vote, college student. Argue in your acceptance speech, or win easily. |
13 | 2eca3c01-2019-04-18T12:07:43Z-00001-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | god knowingly hates children Lamentations 4: 9-11 "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. 10 The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. 11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof."Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."Judges 21:10 "And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children."2 Samuel 12:11-14 "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men."Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."---- a different translation ----Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."Ezekiel 9:5-7 "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$."Hosea 9:11-16 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died."Exodus 21:14 -17 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."Psalms 137:8-9 "Prayer/song of vengeance "0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."2 Kings 6:28-29 "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. 29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."Judges 19:24-29 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. 27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an a$$, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. 29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel." To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." repeat Oh I get it, so you as christians think its cool and rather polite for your grandson to be murdered for something that YOU did. Well if that's the law of the land, then there would be nobody left alive. After all, anybody could make up anything they wanted to about anybody no matter how stupid that didn't even apply to them. And who's to say if it would be correct? There wouldn't be any witnesses to protect the innocent after all.God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action? 2 Kings 2:23-24 "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone "bald head" is far from being worthy of death. Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." Jeremiah 11:22-23 "Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will punish them: the young men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall die by famine: 23 And there shall be no remnant of them: for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth, even the year of their visitation. Jeremiah 19: 7-9 "And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. 9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. |
32 | 1a2ffdd3-2019-04-18T15:08:28Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Voter photo id laws. Voter SuppressionPhoto ID laws impose a cost to voting on those without state-issued IDs. My [7] puts the average cost of a state-issued ID around $14 to $58. [8] puts the cost for low-income voters even higher, at $75 to $175. Wylted doesn't argue these costs.When the costs of voting increase, turnout decreases. That's "common sense," and Wylted doesn't argue that either. Instead, Wylted debates a different issue: "provisional ballots," "reasonable accommodations," and "absentee ballots." But neither of those reduce burdens on low-income individuals who lack both state-issued IDs and the required underlying documents.The "provisional ballots" argument fails for two reasons. First, you're still required to provide a photo ID. "If the voter does not come back to show ID, the provisional ballot is not counted." [Pro's 1] Second, they impose a greater cost via the time wasted waiting in line to vote, the effort to get a photo ID, and then having to return to the election office to present the ID. These costs matter so much that most provisional ballots are never counted, even after voters already invested time showing up on election day. [18] That means some interested voters don't get their votes counted.The "reasonable accommodations" argument fails because it's limited to a small group of voters with specific burdens like religious objections or victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. The "reasonable accommodations" don't cover low-income nondrivers (mostly minorities), which is the main group that's disenfranchised by photo ID laws.The "absentee ballots" argument fails because some states require photo ID to request an absentee ballot. If they don't, they impose strict limits on who can vote absentee (i.e. must be absent from the district on election day, be ill, be older than 65, or scheduled to work during the entire 12-hour voting period). [19] Most low-income individuals without photo ID can't vote "absentee" without first getting a state-issued ID.Finally, if voter fraud is an "actual" rather than "invented" problem, as Wylted claims, then "absentee ballots" that don't require photo ID are a gap in Wylted's version of the law. In fact, the evidence shows "absentee ballots" are a much more common source of fraud than in-person voting. [6] [7] Wylted cannot advocate "absentee ballots" as a solution when his stated reason for having photo ID laws is to prevent voter fraud.--Wylted ignores my "voting is a low-reward activity" argument. Extend that argument. Even a small cost on voting can depress voter turnout.--Wylted cites a Reuters article for the idea that photo ID laws don't suppress voters. But this so-called "legitimate study" isn't "highly respected" (no academic, lawyer, judge, or policymaker has cited it), nor is it a "legitimate" study (it's written by a journalist with no background in statistics). The article says voter turnout increased in Georgia and Indiana in the 2008 election. But that doesn't mean photo ID laws didn't suppress voters. There are two key flaws in the article's analysis. First, the article notes that 2008 was "an anomaly because many blacks were determined to vote for Obama." Of course, turnout increased across the entire country in 2008, so increased turnout alone doesn't prove that voters weren't suppressed. Second, the article fails to compare turnout in photo ID law states with turnout in non photo ID law states. When you compare states, the data shows that turnout increased more in states without photo ID laws. [7] The Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that prepares reports for members of Congress, analyzed three data sets to compare Kansas/Tennessee (photo ID law states) with Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine (non photo ID law). The study found 1.9 to 2.2 percent less voters in Kansas, and 2.2 to 3.2 percent less in Tennessee. That's 122,000 voters that photo ID laws suppressed. Moreover, unlike Wylted's source, the GAO report "applied criteria to ensure that the [considered] states did not have other factors present in their election environments that may have significantly affected turnout." This chart summarizes the results: Prefer my sources to Wylted's, as his source fails to consider relevant data and misapplies statistical reasoning. Also, apply "common sense": the idea that voter ID laws increase minority voting -- which is what Wylted's source suggests -- simply doesn't make sense. Obstacles to voting don't increase voter turnout. And if photo ID laws actually increase minority voting, liberals should rejoice in the laws and conservatives deplore them. Yet it's conservatives who support them and liberals who oppose them. Unless conservatives and liberals are masochists, promoting laws that hurt them, Wylted's source is just bad journalism, and photo ID laws suppress minority voting, not increase it.Voter FraudWylted says the News 21 study is "trash." That's an unfair characterization. Yes, the study has limits, but so does every social science study. That doesn't mean the study is "trash." We do the best we can with the available data. The question is whether those limits significantly affect likelihood of the study's conclusion. They do not.The News 21 study analyzed 2,068 election fraud cases over 10 years and found that only 10 cases involved in-person voter fraud. However, 645 cases could not be "categorized as one kind of fraud or another." To be sure, that limits the completeness of the study. But it also means 10 out of 1423 cases were in-person voter fraud, or 0.7%. That result alone shows that in-person voter fraud doesn't threaten voting integrity. If we extrapolate that percentage to the uncategorized cases, you only get 4 more cases of in-person voter fraud. However you spin the News 21 study, it's results are clear: in-person voter fraud is exceedingly rare. And, of course, other studies (which Wylted has yet to address) confirm this result. [7] [11] [12] [13] [14] Even Fox news. [15]--Wylted ignores my argument about the costs, complexity and risks of orchestrating massive in-person voter fraud. Wylted also doesn't address the EAC study, which says "impersonation of voters" is the "least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered" and it's "an inefficient method of influencing an election." [16] Extend this argument.Further note: If a photo ID law is necessary to deter voter-impersonation fraud, then such fraud would be common -- maybe even rampant -- in states that don't require a photo ID. But there's simply no evidence that in-person voter fraud is common in those states.Wylted says voter fraud is hard to detect. But there's no evidence of that. And even if it's hard to detect, in-person voter fraud is still so inefficient, risky, and costly that there's no reason politicians would pursue it over other forms of fraud. Especially since [16] says in-person voter fraud is the easiest to detect.--Wylted says photo ID laws stop multiple voting, noncitizen voting, people voting in the wrong precinct, and out-of-state voting. Not so. Photo ID requirements don't stop multiple voting (or at least I don't see how they would). State-issued IDs are available to noncitizens. And photo ID laws generally don't require that your voting address match your ID's address. [Pro's 1]Also, photo ID laws don't work against other types of fraud, like vote buying, misleading or confusing ballot papers, ballot stuffing, misrecording of votes, misuse of proxy votes, destruction of ballots, tampering with voting machines, intimidation and threats of violence, legal threats, economic threats, and manipulation of demography.--Wylted should be held to his sources. [Pro's 2] states: "Data and numerous interviews by Reuters reporters also suggest there is little evidence to bolster Republican assertions that ID laws are needed to combat rampant voter fraud." It continues: "Georgia officials could not point to a single documented instance of voter impersonation before or after the law took effect." If you accept Wylted's source, then you also have to accept that voter fraud isn't a threat.Voting IntegrityWylted says photo ID laws increase the integrity of elections, or at least increase public perception of integrity. But there's no evidence that photo ID laws promote public confidence in elections. In fact, "Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements," an article by Stephen Ansolabehere & Nathaniel Persily, finds that perceptions of voter-impersonation fraud aren't affected by the strictness of a state's voter ID law. [20] That means photo ID laws don't increase voters' confidence in the honesty of elections. This, in turn, means that photo ID laws won't reduce voter-impersonation fraud, because if they did, one would expect perceptions of its prevalence to change.ConclusionWylted says we should apply common sense. But Wylted cannot win this debate via common sense. Common sense says voter turnout decreases when the cost of voting increases. And when it comes to voter fraud, common sense says in-person voter fraud is an invented problem, because politicians won't risk orchestrating a massive campaign of voter-impersonation fraud. The costs and risks are too high. I've cited multiple studies that support these common sense points with empirical data. When both common sense and the overwhelming force of empirical evidence says that photo ID laws depress voter turnout, and that voter-impersonation fraud isn't a threat to the integrity of elections, the conclusions aren't debatable. The net effect of these two facts is that photo ID laws depress voter turnout without justification.Sources:[18] http://lawreview.richmond.edu...[19] http://www.longdistancevoter.org...[20] http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org... |
16 | 6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing. |
17 | 21ae906a-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal. Victory. Remember to get better, do research before taking a side. Sources are key to victory. |
10 | 36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00006-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | You Choose the Topic! 1. Vaccines should be required for children 2. Felons should be allowed to vote 3. Animal testing 4. The voting age/drinking age/smoking age should be raised (choose whichever you want) 5. Make child marriage illegal in the U.S. (participants must be 18 or older) Extra: raise the age of majority |
16 | 5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00006-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drugs Should Stay Illegal Drugs being bad has nothing to do with whether they should be legal. Are you going to make an argument or lose the debate? |
35 | 5dce2de2-2019-04-18T15:41:55Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | is video games bad for kids The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 "Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children" available at www.aap.org: "Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music." July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article "FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence," available on psychology.iastate.edu: "The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal." 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled "Growing Up GTA" available at huffingtonpost.com: "My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately " and then elevating people's levels of dopamine" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: "The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence." June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled "Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?" available at psychologytoday.com "People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that"s not true. We haven"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence " just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work." Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled "Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): "Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th |
19 | ea2e9e22-2019-04-18T16:28:43Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal Gay marriage deals with the same concept as any other marriage, which is that two people love each other so they get married. People try to argue that gay marriage is wrong, my question is how? Because the bible said so? First of all you can't argue that gay marriage is wrong because the bible said so, there are many religions out there and not all of them say that gay marriage is wrong. Second of all why does it even effect you and why are you so worried about what other people are doing? Mind your own business and don't worry about the small things like gay marriage. If two people are happy let them be, they are not interfering you, so why interfere with theirs? And if gay marriage is wrong then so is sex before marriage, and probably more than half of you out there have had sex before marriage. Therefore you have no right to say that homosexuals are disobeying the bible any more than you people who have sex before marriage. |
49 | 7e60a5d4-2019-04-18T15:49:08Z-00005-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | vaccinations should be mandatory I am going to argue that the vaccination should be a choice and not mandatory. |
38 | 87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana dispensaries Medical marijuana should not be allowed just to grow state revenue |
38 | 82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana should be a legal option 1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, "There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases," Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, "That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, "Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke," This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug. |
24 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | 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 |
32 | 1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Lowering the voting age to 16 I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance? |
11 | 643ea454-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | All Drugs should be Decriminalized I apologize for the previous round, Life happened and I unfortunately ran out of time to post my argument. I am taking the stance of decriminalizing all drugs. When talking about decriminalizing drugs I do not mean allowing people to do as they please with any substance but rather we no longer someone to jail or prison for a substance and collecting a criminal record, They actually get a chance to get off of the substance they were caught using. Sending someone to jail for a drug has been shown to not only be an ineffective way to stop people from re-using but also in deterring future users from ever starting. We should focus on giving people resources to rid themselves of a drug rather than keep them criminalized where they are given no resources in actual rehabilitation and in fact makes their lives worse as they would now have a criminal record. |
5 | e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00010-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Pensions should be privatised Government Presence in the Pensions Sector Reduces Quality of Pension Services |
35 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette |
18 | a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions. |
1 | 430e620e-2019-04-18T11:38:45Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers should be armed Your not talking about the guns I'm talking about. This was a waste of time. For the record I was talking about the guns as in weapons like full auto semi auto bolt action pump action lever action. I shouldn't have to be so specific but people want to be comedians. |
48 | 6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00006-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | That the voting age should be lowered to 15 I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age. |
34 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan Let me note before my argument that I have PLENTY more stats and arguments to state but I will include that in my next argument these are just SOME of the reasons why Lebron is better I think lebron James is the best player in NBA history for many reasons , before I even get into the mutitude of stats and such that prove my point let me just say one thing , Jordan is a great player , in fact the second best player of all time , but Jordan could not take over a game in the many different ways Lebron does , Lebron can get everyone in loved and when he is on the court it is always 1 vs 5 until Lebron gets his teammates involved through his great play because we all know Lebron never has amazing teammates like Jordan did ( I will get into that in my next argument ) and the one thing even Lebron haters or Jordan lovers or at least anyone with a working brain will know is that Lebron is the most dominating physical specimen that has ever been in the history of all sports since the beginning of time ! Lebron is a better athlete than Jordan and a better all around player even the professionals who ride the Jordan bandwagon will admit that , that's obvious , no one can ever compare to lebrons physical ability . Now , since that is out of the way , Lebron is the all time SF assist leader and will most likely end up in the top 5 or 10 in assists leaders of all positions , lebron spreads the floor like no other player in the history of the sport , just like Scottie Pippen said , when lebron james is on the court , everyone is a threat to score . When Jordan played he was and still is the best scorer of all time but he didn't have the vision lebron has , it's not because of Jordan's amazing carrying abilities that no one on his team scored in double digits most of the time , it's because Jordan had the ball more than anyone by far and more time then not , he shot . That's why lebron is better in all around offense , lebron has a better FG% than Jordan because if he doesn't have a good shot he can throw a 40mph pass to a big down low that no one would consider open before that but lebron can get the pass in , or he can pass it across court to the open man at the 3 . Jordan , when he couldn't get a good shot off , he would still shoot it and miss most the time . Lebron all around offense , is better , lebron can get offensive boards , pass , and execute plays better than Jordan . On the defensive end , Jordan's DPOY doesn't mean anything when compared to lebron , back then lebron would have won multiple DPOY's , lebron can guard every position , he can guard 1-4 and lock down if he needs to and if he needs to be can guard a center for a play and have a pretty good chance against him . Jordan can only guard the SG and PG and the occasional SF but most were too big and strong for him , Jordan could steal the ball better than lebron but lebron can get boards and block better than Jordan , for example Lebron's signature chase down block . Now when the argument of who's more clutch comes , Lebron's most resent buzzer beater officially ties jordan for career made shots in the last seconds of a playoff game . And Jordan got almost all of his after he was 30 , and lebron is 30 now so lebron of you wanna be realistic , will end up getting more buzzer beaters than Jordan , and lebron in the lat 15 seconds of a game , has a better percentage than Jordan . So statistically and technically lebron is more clutch than Jordan ESPECIALLY in the playoffs . Unlike Lebron , without good teammates Jordan was HORRIBLE in the playoffs , did you know before Pippen joined him MJ was 1-9 in the playoffs in his career , 1-9 ! !! ! Lebron has NEVER LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS ! He is the first player since the legend celtics to go to 5 finals in a row ! Jordan couldn't even get past the first round without Pippen ! ! Lebron is the best playoff player in the history of the NBA he just recently passed Jordan in amount of 30-5-5 playoff games with 52 but he has gotten more since then which means he has around 53-55 Jordan has 51 and lebron is no where near done in the playoffs ! 2 playoff games ago lebron put up numbers no other player in the NBA history has ever gotten , he just put up 37-18-13 IN THE PLAYOFFS ! No player has ever put up those numbers IN THE SEASON OR PLAYOFFS EVER ! Lebron is the best player ever when it comes to playoffs in the history of the NBA and you cannot argue that cause crushing I've said is facts . Lebron has countless records already over Jordan but j only have like 15 more minutes to answer this so i can't go into all of them until next round ! Lebron has the better per game stats than Jordan he averages more blocks steals and rebounds than Jordan for their careers after this past season stats get out into Lebron's career averages , lebron has somewhere just over 60 career playoff triple doubles in his 9th playoff appearance , Jordan has 39 after his 13th playoff appearance , lebron is ranked number 1 in NBA history with the highest scoring average per game on elimination playoff games with 31 , he is number 1 in games in the playoffs with at least 25-10-5 with 32 times , lebron took 726 games to reach at least 20,000 points and 5,000 assist , Jordan took 926 , Scottie Pippen told Alonzo mourning that lebron would " kick michael Jordan's *** in basketball , lebron has 159 10+ assist games , Jordan has 88 , lebron is the only player in history to reach 2,000 pts , 500 rebounds , 500 assists , and 100 steals for at least 7 seasons in a row , Jordan has only 2 of those seasons and there not even in a row , those were just his two best seasons , lebron has the most 30 point triple doubles Ever with 19 and Jordan has 17 , lebron is 60% in the last 5 seconds of the 4th quarter or overtime , Jordan is 45% , NOW MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS NEXT PART . .. . ALL OF THE STATS I JUST POSTED WERE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAST SEASON SO AMOST ALL OF THESE STATS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AND BIGGER SINCE THEN INCLUDING THE PLAYOFF STATS BECAUSE LEBRON HAS BEEN AMAZING THIS PLAYOFFS , all of Jordan's stats are never getting better , his career is over , lebron has at least 5-8 more seasons so he will surpass MJ in almost everything . Scottie Pippen said out of his own mouth , " Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play the game , but Lebron may be the greatest player to ever play the game . .. No guy is not a threat when Lebron is on the court. " Skip Bayless of First Take said " Lebron is a better all around player than Jordan . He has more skills than Michael . " Stephen A Smith replied " we know that " Another debate Skip and Stephen also had was that skip thought MJ could guard Lebron and Stephen A Smith replied " you must be crazy , too big , too strong , too much of a locomotive coming at him , now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wouldn't be Michael Jordan , but if that's the case , why did Michael Jordan need Scottie Pippen to defend Magic Johnson when he won the world championship the first time around ? " which proves that MJ couldn't guard Lebron , Stephen A went on to say that Magic Johnson's athleticism doesn't scratch the surface of Lebron's . And the flight man himself has said he was guarding Lebron , he can't stop Lebron from driving to the right and going to the hole on him . Lebron is the best all around player of all time and that is a fact based on his stats , he can literally do everything . Now listen I understand Jordan is 6/6 in the finals it's obvious your gunna bring that up anyone would unless they're horrible at debating but I will address the 6/6 in the finals in my next argument but lebron will win 6 finals if not more in his career , and definitly have all of the finals MVP's unlike Kobe . Now I am going to paste a list of Lebron's career accomplishments REGULAR SEASON RECORDS 1st place all-time in career assists by a forward. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Week with 48 nominations. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Month with 29 nominations. 2nd place all-time in points scored in All-Star games with 278. Behind Kobe Bryant's 280. Only player in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists for their career. [24] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in four consecutive seasons. [25] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in a single season for at least seven seasons. [26] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, and 500 assists in a single season for at least seven seasons. [27] Only player in NBA history to win the NBA Player of the Month Award four times in two consecutive seasons. [28] Only player in NBA history to change teams after averaging at least 27 points, twice. [29] Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for 11 consecutive seasons. [30] One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for six consecutive seasons. [31] Includes Oscar Robertson, who achieved this eight consecutive times. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists in a single season for at least eight seasons. [32] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists in a season for at least six seasons. [33] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards in a span of five years. [34] Includes Bill Russell. One of two players in NBA history to win at least two NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for two different franchises. Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. One of two players in NBA history to lead NBA Finals in scoring, but play on a different team the following season. [35] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic Gold Medal in the same year. [36] Includes Michael Jordan (1992). One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in two consecutive seasons. Includes Michael Jordan. One of three players in NBA history to average 25 points per game for 11 consecutive seasons. Includes Jerry West and Karl Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP with a team, leave, and then come back. [37] Includes Allen Iverson and Moses Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, twice. [38] Includes Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 2000 points in a single season for at least nine seasons. [39] Includes Karl Malone (12 seasons), Michael Jordan (11), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (9). One of five players in NBA history to score at least 10 points in 500 consecutive games. [40] Includes Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Karl Malone. Currently 3rd all-time on the list with 641 games. One of five players in NBA history to win consecutive Finals MVP Awards. [41] Includes Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Kobe Bryant. One of five players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. [42] Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain. One of five players in NBA history to change teams after leading the league in triple-doubles. [43] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Lance Stephenson. One of five players in NBA history to score 50+ points multiple times for two different teams. [44] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Pete Maravich, Bernard King, and Carmelo Anthony. One of six players in NBA history to average at least 27 points for their career. [45] Includes Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Kevin Durant. One of eight players in NBA history to lead a franchise in points, assists, and steals. [46] Includes Kevin Garnett, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Randy Smith, Isiah Thomas, and Dwyane Wade. SeasonEdit Only player in NBA History to win the NBA Player of the Month Award five times in a single season. [28] Only player in NBA history to post 30 or more points and shoot over 60 percent for six consecutive games in a single season. [47] One of two players in NBA history to receive all but one vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award in a single season. [48] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 30 points and 10 assists in a calendar month while playing at least 10 games. [49] Includes Russell Westbrook (achieved this twice, in one season) One of three players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists in a single season. [50] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this five times) and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists in their rookie season. [51] Includes Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Tyreke Evans. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 31 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. [52] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this twice), Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to lead their team in all five major statistical categories (total points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals) in a single season (2008"09 season). [53] Includes Dave Cowens (1977"78), Scottie Pippen (1994"95) and Kevin Garnett (2002"03). One of six players in NBA history to record 2,000 points and 600 assists in a single season. [54] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this seven times), John Havlicek (achieved this twice), Tiny Archibald (achieved this twice), Derrick Rose, and Michael Jordan. GameEdit Only player in NBA history to record at least 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists in a game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 31 points, 19 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in a game. One of three players in NBA history to record at least 33 points, 12 assists, and 9 rebounds in a game. Includes Michael Jordan and Nate Robinson. One of four players in NBA history to record at least 61 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists in a game. Includes Michael Jordan, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady. PlayoffsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time being a leader in points, rebounds and assists on 37 occasions. 24 more games than next player on the list Larry Bird with (13). 1st place all-time for scoring average in game 7s with 34.4 points per game. 1st place all-time for scoring average in elimination games with 31.7 points per game. [55] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 88. [56][57] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 39. [56][58] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 58. 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 28. [59][60] T-1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists with 8. Tied with Oscar Robertson. 2nd place all-time for consecutive 20-point games to start a playoff career with 19. [61] Behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 27 consecutive games. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the playoffs with 14. Behind Magic Johnson's 30 triple-doubles. 3rd place all-time for consecutive 20-point playoff games with 54. [62] Behind Wilt Chamberlain's 126 and 92 consecutive games. T-3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 45 points with 7. [63] Tied with Allen Iverson. Behind Michael Jordan (23) and Wilt Chamberlain (8) 3rd place all-time for scoring average in first 150 playoff games with 28.1. [64] Behind Michael Jordan and Jerry West. 3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 30 points with 80. Behind Michael Jordan (109) and Kobe Bryant (88). 3rd place all-time for free throws made in the playoffs with 1,273. Behind Michael Jordan (1,463) and Kobe Bryant (1,320). Only player in NBA history to shoot at least 50 percent in 9 consecutive playoff games while attempting at least 15 FGs. [65] Only player in NBA history to average 28 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists in their playoff career. [66] Only player in NBA history to record 5,000 points, 1,500 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in their playoff career. Only player in NBA history to play 20 playoff games in 5 consecutive seasons. One of three players in NBA history to average 30 points and 10 rebounds when facing elimination. [67] Includes Wilt Chamberlain and Anthony Davis. One of nine players in NBA history to play in the NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey. Single PostseasonEdit Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 16 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason. [68][69] Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 14 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason, multiple times. [68][69] One of two players in NBA history to average 30 points, 11 rebounds and 8 assists per game in a single post season. Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to record 600 points, 200 rebounds, and 100 assists in a single postseason twice. Includes Larry Bird. SeriesEdit Only player in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists in a playoff series (2015 Conference Finals vs. Atlanta Hawks). [70] One of five players in NBA History to average at least 33.8 points and 7.3 assists in a playoff series. Includes Michael Jordan (achieved this three times), Jerry West (achieved twice), Tracy McGrady, and Stephen Curry. GameEdit Most consecutive points scored for a team in a playoff game with 25 consecutive points at the Detroit Pistons on May 31, 2007. [71] Only player in NBA history to score at least 49 points in a playoff game for two different franchises. [72] Only player in NBA history to record at least 37 points, 18 rebounds, and 13 assists in a playoff game. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists in a playoff game. [73] Includes Wilt Chamberlain. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in their playoff debut. [74] Includes Johnny McCarthy and Magic Johnson. NBA FinalsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time for triple-doubles with at least 30 points in the NBA Finals with 3. 1st place all-time for three-point field goals attempted in the NBA Finals with 167. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the NBA Finals with 6. Behind Magic Johnson's 8 triple-doubles. T-2nd place all-time for three-point field goals made in the NBA Finals with 55. Tied with Ray Allen. Behind Robert Horry's 56. Only player in NBA history to play in five consecutive NBA Finals, doing so with different teams. One of three players in NBA history to play in the All-Star Game and NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. SeriesEdit Most points scored in first three games with (123) in 2015 NBA Finals. 1st place all-time for most points scored and assisted per game in an NBA Finals series with 57.7[75] 2nd place all-time for highest percentage of team points in an NBA Finals series. [76] Behind Michael Jordan's 38.4%; James accounted for 38.3% of his team's points in the 2015 NBA Finals. Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists in an NBA Finals series (accomplished this three times). [77] Only player in NBA history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finals series. Only player in NBA history to average 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists in an NBA Finals series. James averaged 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, 8.8 assists in the 2015 NBA Finals. One of three players in NBA history to score 40 points in at least three games in a single NBA Finals series. Includes Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. GameEdit T-1st place all-time for points scored in an NBA Finals Game 1 loss with 44. Tied with Shaquille O'Neal. Only player in NBA history to score at least 40 points and record at least half of his team's assists in an NBA Finalsgame, achieved this twice in a single NBA Finals series. [78] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in an NBA Finals game. [79] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 14 rebounds, and 11 assists in an NBA Finals game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 32 points, 18 rebounds, and 9 assists in an NBA Finals game. One of two players in NBA history to produce outright game highs of points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finalsgame. [80] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 35 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists in an NBA Finals game. [81] Includes James Worthy. One of two players in NBA history to record a triple-double with at least 40 points in an NBA Finals game. [82] Includes Jerry West. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an elimination game in an NBA Finals game. [83] Includes Bill Russell and James Worthy. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in Games 6 and 7 of the NBA Finals in the same season. [84] Includes Jerry West (achieved this twice), Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. One of five players in NBA history to score at least 40 points in a regular-season game and then do it again against the same opponent in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [85] Includes George Mikan, Jerry West, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant. One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an NBA Finals clinching game. [86] Includes Magic Johnson (twice, 1982 and 1985), Larry Bird (1986), James Worthy (1988), Tim Duncan (2003), and Draymond Green (2015). One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [87] Includes Wilt Chamberlain (1967), Walt Frazier (1972), Dave Cowens (1976), Magic Johnson (1991), and Jason Kidd(2002). Youngest player recordsEdit James owns numerous NBA "youngest player" records. He is the youngest1 To be selected #1 overall draft pick (18 years of age). [citation needed] To be named NBA Rookie of the Year (19 years of age). [citation needed] To score most points by prep-to-pro player in their professional debut with (25) To record a triple-double (20 years, 20 days). [88] Recorded 27 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists on January 19, 2005 vs. Portland Trail Blazers. To record a triple-double in the playoffs. (21 years, 113 days). [citation needed] Recorded 32 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists on April 22, 2006 vs. Washington Wizards. To score 30 points in a game (18 years, 334 days). [citation needed] Recorded 33 points on November 29, 2003 vs. Memphis Grizzlies To score 40 points in a game (19 years, 88 days). [citation needed] Recorded 41 points on March 27, 2004 vs. New Jersey Nets. To score 2,000 points in a season (2004"05). [citation needed] To average at least 30 points per game in the NBA. To be awarded All-NBA honors (2004"05). [citation needed] To be named to the All-NBA first team (21 years, 138 days). [citation needed] To win an All-Star Game MVP (21 years, 55 days). [citation needed] To lead the league in All-Star voting (22 years, 26 days). [citation needed] To score 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons (26 years of age). [citation needed] To win Most Valuable Player award four times (28 years of age). [citation needed] To reach 4,000 playoff points (29 years of age). [89] To reach 5,000 playoff points (30 years of age). Every point milestone from 1,000 up to 24,000[90][91][92][93][94][95] |
26 | b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests As a person, who has lived through the standardized testing era first hand, I would like to refute the following points heavenly panda has made in support of standardized testing. 1. " Having standardized tests, would not only make students have to do well but also teachers." Define, "Doing well" I mean, having standardized tests, does increase the pressure for students and teachers to do well, however the question is, what does it pressure them to do well on? The answer to this question is standardized tests. Growing up in the standardized test era, Most of my teachers spent the majority of their time teaching their students how to do well on standardized tests. We were taught ways to eliminate answers on the multiple choice questions, in addition to this, teachers also dumbed down their curriculum, so they would have more time teaching students how to pass the standardized tests. Students also were trained to believe that every question only has one correct answer. Any student who dared to suggest otherwise, was shot down and told that whatever the test says is the correct answer. Even when the occasional error was found on the standardized tests, Students had no method of recourse when this happened and were not allowed to challenge the validness of the test's answer. This would not be the case in the working world( Ex. The existence of the Human Resources Department.) For anyone who is reading this argument, it is now clear how problematic standardized tests are. In the working world, students will not have answer choices of A. B. C. D. or E. with only one of these answers being correct. Students will need to come up with their own answers, and understand that no answer is necessarily correct above all else. Each possible answer a person comes up with has its benefits, in addition to having its downsides. For students to succeed they will need to be able to create their own answers, and be able to weigh out the pro's and cons of each to determine which one is the best..Creating finding, and picking a correct answer is only of secondary importance as many answers could be correct, however, what employers want the most for their employees is to come up with the best possible solution to problems, not just a correct one. Lets move on to point to your second point. 2. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better. Yep, they would do better.... on standardized tests! *See rebuttal to point one. OAK P.S. We already have standardized testing in elementary, middle school and high school. I know this because I lived through it and my younger sister is living through it now. Even with the existence of standardized testing teachers still could not fail their students. The ones who tried to were yelled at and belittled if they felt a student should be held back. Plus, quite a few schools already are public with regard to the schools test scores. Its the fact that these school's mark's are public, that teachers are yelled at for trying to fail students who aren't ready to enter the next grade level. It looks bad for the school and teachers if a student fails, even if the student failed because he/she refused to pay attention and ditched every other class. Schools and teachers are scared to fail students because the school could lose its funding, and teachers could lose there job if they do. Years ago, it was the fault of the student if they failed a class, now the teacher is blamed for failing a student who made no effort to learn the material. |
26 | b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests Challenge accepted, Standardized tests should not be used from Grades 1-12 as they discourage critical thinking skills, take away valuable time that could be used to educate students in a classroom, and fail to accurately assess a students academic progress. These reasons are just my starting point and only scratch the surface of the problems associated with standardized tests. I have many more reasons against the use of standardized tests, however, I will save those reasons for when the debate officially begins. |
11 | df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00001-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Muslims should be accepted in America i could see snoop dog and ice cube killing people. are you Muslim because you sound like a stupid muslim - jew cross |
9 | f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | High school students should wear uniforms Prove that it is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools. Students should be free to wear whatever they choose, aside from certain items such as clothes with inappropriate speech. School uniforms restrain the students' freedom of expression and create an environment of conformity. You might argue that school uniforms contribute to order in a school, but I don't think it's obvious that uniforms should be implemented in schools. |
41 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00004-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my "Benefits" section, shows one of the issues: "The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. " My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my "benefits" section: "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. "At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions "job connections. " In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. "Fear of failing" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if "the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? " The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote "individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor's degrees" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. "That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. "The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against "opportunities," yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing. |
11 | 87b43e8a-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00004-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities Drug testing is important. If people in sports didn't get drug tested that would be unfair to the other contestants/athletes. With taking drugs you have an advantage. You get a boost in your energy. Also it is illegal to take drugs when you are in athletics. If you participate in any athletic activities you need to be fair. There is a lot of news going around that athletes who win every race or what ever took drugs they lost all their gold metals and their whole carrier went down the drain. |
10 | ce51e361-2019-04-18T16:31:42Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Edible Vaccines Why am I not surprised? Another science debate that someone starts and isn't even prepared to argue. Fantastic. |
38 | d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations. |
50 | dca59d96-2019-04-18T18:16:43Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | minimum wage should exist as to the quote about a man's worth. there are several ways to measure a man's worth. you posit that the man should be worth what the market will pay. we effectively have an infinite labor pools, espeically if we include other countries etc. that means a man is worth beans... not because of what he earns for his boss, but for what the boss is able to pay. this allows people to make millions or tens of thousands at the expense of exploiting an infinite labor pool, by paying beans. we know that they pay beans, because everytime there's a wage set, that's what employers pay. such as 3.50 in the 80s. we both agree that the wage causes some unemployment. but that's simply the price we have to accept to ensure a broader range of people are paid decently. we can allow for two unemployed people if that means twenty are paid decent, for example. most people can eventually find minimum wage jobs... it might be a bit harder, but as far as i've ever seen, it can be done... especially in times that are not as bad as this current recession. that means the two unemployed will eventually be among the employed. anyone who can't ever find a job even in good economic times, probably is not worth hiring much at all, and even if they are worth two dollars an hour... it's the price we must pay to allow those twenty people to have a decent job and worth their way up the ladder. Con is trying to make the norm where everyone makes 2 dollars an hour, and everyone closer to the wage will make that much too.. instead of finally making 9 at mcdonalds you'll finally make 4. the same people will be working their way up the ladder to the same positions, but they will simply find themselves making less and next to impossibly able to get by while getting there. the norm works.... minimum wage ensures a standard, and works on a mass scale. "Some more economists, David Neumark and Olena Nizalova, found ironically that young workers in states with a lower minimum wage earned more money on average than workers in states with high minimum wages. Minimum wages aren't terribly helpful." a reasonable explanation for this is that those states don't have a minimum don't need it, cause their market is able to afford more without requiring more. also, i'm not arguing how much the wages should be, just that we should find a magic spot... too high would of course be bad, probably for everyone. even in those states that don't have them as high, the wage exists everywhere as that's required by federal law. the minimum wage is not well known for hurting the poor.... it's well known for helping the poor. leave it to someone to throw out common sense, ie that we require certain standards in employment, and contort themselves to insist that the common sense standards are actually bad. "Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, although others confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects" "A Blunt Instrument; The Minimum Wage," The Economist, October 28, 2006. "In 2006, the International Labour Organization (ILO)[6] argued that the minimum wage could not be directly linked to unemployment in countries that have suffered job losses. In April 2010, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)[47] released a report arguing that countries could alleviate teen unemployment by "lowering the cost of employing low-skilled youth" through a sub-minimum training wage. A study of U.S. states showed that businesses' annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate in states with a minimum wage.[48] The study showed a correlation, but did not claim to prove causation. Although strongly opposed by both the business community and the Conservative Party when introduced in 1999, the minimum wage introduced in the UK is no longer controversial and the Conservatives reversed their opposition in 2000.[49] A review of its effects found no discernible impact on employment levels.[50]" |
45 | 1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. "With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. " Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. "The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the "ULTIMATE" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, "$10,000 for maintenance(annually)"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately "$15 million dollars" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . "Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. " This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. "I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. " My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. "Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. " This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). "ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. " If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} "Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. "Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. " Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. " If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. "My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. " A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com... |
48 | d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Lower the Voting Age Teenagers are affected by politics, and therefore should have a say in it. Many issues that are voted on directly affect primarily teenagers. One big example being education. Issues that tend to effect teenagers more than adults: voucher system Educational funding homeschooling Minimum wage Collage pricing Teenagers are held accountable to the law. If someone is to be held to the law, they should also have some kind of say in it. All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults. Even if sentencing was always reduced or changed for minors, they still had no way for their opinion to count in any fashion. . https://www.ncjrs.gov...Teenagers are not likely to vote worse than adults.55.7% of the U. S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. That is just the presidential election, of which tends to get voted in most. If nearly half the current voting age adults won't vote, having teenagers involved won't hurt. According to my other sources poll, only "36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government"This shows that most people wouldn't be voting if quality of vote was important. . http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.businessinsider.com...Thank |
28 | 821c3072-2019-04-18T12:07:12Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal in the United States Prostitution So many ways it is performed, and so many ways it is perceived. Both by those who have nothing to do with the industry and by those actively involved. We need to place a paramount perspective that in all business that business is PEOPLE. As American citizens, there are rights we are given solely by "being alive." The stigma and negative connotation of anything that involves the "profane" has always existed. We may never see true equality among men and women, but this [prostitution] is something that extends beyond American borders. We may have varying opinion on what "prostitution" is/isn"t " with this segue I want to introduce a United Nations 2000 "Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime" to explain that prostitution can NOT be "human trafficking" if this industry is legalized, regulated, taxed and incorporated into our economic structure. The UN convened that, "'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs." None of these can exist in a legitimate/legal business enterprise. It is for the overall benefit for the PEOPLE in this industry that I take this stance that "America should legalize prostitution." My arguments are going to revolved around the only information available (in America) to discuss the projected changes by applying the "Nevada brothel model" to this industry (as it is already LEGAL in these United States " similar to any "legalize marijuana" argument.) I believe this comparison allows for a clearer understanding on the contrast within this country when it comes to handling prostitution as a business, and when it is a "street crime." The 5 points for my case in the affirmative for "America should legalize prostitution" are: A1-Increase health, safety, and labor rights/regulations for those working in this industry A2-Economic benefits A3-Reallocates law enforcement persons and resources towards actual threats against citizens A4-Reduction of violence against women And my final point: A5-It is the oldest profession that will NEVER go away A1 - Illegal street prostitutes might face pressure from pimps and Johns to forgo condoms. But states that legalize prostitution can require sex workers to use condoms and get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. Sex workers in Nevada must get monthly tests for syphilis and HIV and weekly tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Nevada also requires condoms for all sex in brothels. This law is posted on the outside of the state's brothels, according to the paper by Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck of the University of Nevada. "All of the women we interviewed were passionate about expressing their support for these law. For example, they insisted that they always use condoms, whether the client prefers to or not," the report stated. Making sex work a crime can drive prostitutes underground and make them less likely to practice safe sex and get tested for sexually transmitted disease. An April 2012 study by the Urban Justice Center found that New York City cops were using condoms found on women as evidence in criminal prostitution cases against them. It's easy to imagine how this practice might deter sex workers from carrying protection. The United Nations Development Programme published a report last year on illegal sex work in Asia and the Pacific that highlighted just how damaging the criminalization of sex work can be to women's health. Here's what it said: Criminalization increases vulnerability to HIV by fueling stigma and discrimination, limiting access to HIV and sexual health services, condoms and harm reduction services, and adversely affecting the self-esteem of sex workers and their ability to make informed choices about their health. Legally employed people in America get rights like a minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and a safe work environment. Since prostitutes don't work legally, they don't get any of those rights. The United Nations Development Programme's report on sex work in Asia and the Pacific highlighted why it's problematic when sex workers don't have legal rights. "Sex workers in all countries of the region except New Zealand and the state of New South Wales (Australia) lack the labour rights afforded to other workers, including the legal right to a safe and healthy workplace and to reasonable terms and conditions of employment ... Labour laws and social security laws that do not recognize sex work as legitimate work contribute to stigma and marginalization of sex workers." A2 - While brothels in Nevada pay no state taxes, they pay "significant amounts of tax" to the rural counties where they do business, according to The New York Times. (Nevada Republicans blocked a plan a couple of years ago to subject brothels to state taxes, as they didn't want schools and other state services funded by sex work.) Illegal prostitution businesses in America, of course, pay no taxes. If those brothels were legalized, then state and county governments could gain significant revenue. "Let government share in the revenue, but otherwise stay out of the affairs of consenting adults," MSNBC political analyst Michael Smerconish has written. A3 - The investigation into notorious John, and former New York governor, Eliot Spitzer is a perfect example of how costly it can be to probe sophisticated prostitution rings. "In this case, they wiretapped 5,000 phone conversations, intercepted 6,000 emails, used surveillance and undercover tactics that are more appropriate for trapping terrorists than entrapping Johns," famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Dershowitz has also told MSNBC's Michael Smerconish, "Every hour spent going after prostitution is an hour that could have been spent going after terrorists and going after people who victimize." A4 - Prostitutes in America (mostly women) are vulnerable to violence from customers and pimps. A study of San Francisco prostitutes found that 82% had been assaulted and 68% had been raped while working as prostitutes. Another study of prostitutes in Colorado Springs found they were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitutes their age and race. Prostitutes who experience violence may be reluctant to call the cops since what they're doing is illegal. Sex workers in licensed brothels, on the other hand, can have somebody to back them up, according to a paper by Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck of the University of Nevada. Brents and Hausbeck interviewed brothel owners and made these observations: Brothel owners have a clear interest in maintaining their image as law-abiding, trouble-free businesses to keep their licenses and maintain good relations within their communities. The owners we interviewed ensure this by making it policy to call the police at the slightest hint of trouble to send a message that they don"t tolerate bad behavior. "The whole name of the game is control. But that control also makes us get along pretty well with the sheriff"s office," one owner told the researchers. "There are two reasons for doing it, one, the sheriff"s office, but also the girls" personal safety." The study concluded that "brothels offer the safest environment available for women to sell consensual sex acts for money." A5 - There will always be lonely or kinky men in America who will pay for sex, and there will always be women willing to rent out their bodies. As the anthropologist Patty Kelly has written in the Los Angeles Times, prostitution has become a "part of our culture" in the United States. We legalize and regulate a ton of commerce that's morally controversial " like gambling, alcohol, tobacco, lap-dancing, and pornography. Yes, women can be coerced into prostituting themselves. But we're not helping them by making consenting sex work a crime. Closing Observation " Again, it is already legal in a specified territory in this country and it is an industry that has been around since the beginning, and will last for as long as "we crave sex" and continue to live in a "depressed social state." The merits of "morality" are not concreted to keep this industry illegal as the true "moral compass" of America is freedom/civil liberties/representation/at will employment (which only happens once people are not deemed "criminals" and are able to live the life of their choosing. By legalizing prostitution, we are supporting the free market capital principles of American economics. We do not need anymore people incarcerated in our over populated prisons that have not committed any acts of violence. As mentioned, the ones who are at the highest threat of violence are the workers themselves. As Americans we owe it to the other American citizens to have their rights (as PEOPLE) protected as equally as any other person. And by all this - this is why America should legalize prostitution. |
28 | f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized Rebuttals: "Prostitution is the selling of one's body for a profit." Prostitution is offering sexual favors for a profit, not a body. It is just like any other services job, like a maid or tailor. Please post, I want this to be a legitimate debate. |
10 | e4d5d288-2019-04-18T15:07:19Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Global Warming is Largely Man-Made Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase. Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming." This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2) Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. Contention 2: Earth is cooling. If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC. How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4) Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5) You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. Finailly, lets bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers. Carbon Dioxide -- 1Methane -- 21Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310CFC's -- VariousWater Vapor -- 0.25 Now I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year. [14] This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm. [15] This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real. Now remind yourself that this debate is about humans creating a LARGE amount of Global Warming, not a miniscule amount. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Contention 3: Artic Ice. Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now. Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard's only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7) Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity. Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9) (10) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11) Contention 4: Sea Levels Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as many GW advocates claim then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land. The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link.Contention 5: The WeatherMany Global Warming Advocates claim that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. How about Tornados you may ask? In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase. Sources 1. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...) 2. (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...) 3. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) 4. (http://newsbusters.org...) 5. (http://newsbusters.org...) 6. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 7. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...) 8. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) 9. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 10. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...) 11. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 12. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 13. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 14. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)15. (http://www.geocraft.com...) |
2 | b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00000-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. "E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes," Drummond says. "But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure." E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a "gateway drug," leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. "Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely," says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. "But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative." Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com... |
48 | 5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; "16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country's democracy" as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don't you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase. |
19 | a149e8-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00000-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | In the United States, burning the American flag should be legal. KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KfC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! KFC! |
50 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | 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 |
50 | 4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00007-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare. |
40 | 2728719b-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00008-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal. I'm pro-death penalty for a number of reasons that will be presented later in my cases. I'm looking forward to this debate(: I'm Jonathan and I'm a 14-year old freshman in high-school a first-year debater at Sherman Highschool. I'm on here for fun, so I don't necessarily have a fancy reason for being here, but it's all good. |
4 | 29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | All schools should bring back corporal punishment As my opponent had posted an argument in round one, albeit a cursory one, I did the same. May I suggest for future debates that my opponent state that round one is for acceptance and avoid making an argument in round one.School shootings are obviously largely an American phenomenon. My opponent is going to have a hard time linking them to bans on school corporal punishment, for two simple reasons. One is that school corporal punishment has been banned in many countries, where school shootings are either very rare or have not even occurred at all.[1] The other reason is that there are nineteen US states where school corporal punishment has not been banned at all.[2][3][4]I am amused that my opponent has used a debate as a source. Not only is it a secondary source, it provides rebuttals for me of any points he gleans from it.Via my opponent's own source, in defence of corporal punishment:In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement, 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment.[5][6] Shrewd observers will have worked out that the large majority, four in five, believed that class room behaviour had not deteriorated and that education would not improve with the reintroduction of corporal punishment!I suggest the minority of teachers are the ones whose methods of discipline are ineffective and need more training at the very least.In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has expressed its opposition to corporal punishment in schools.[7]Via my opponent's source, we can see that if there is any correlation between corporal punishment and crime, it is that use of corporal punishment coincides with crime. Of the states with the ten highest murder rates in the United States, educators paddle children in eight of them.Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the US, educators paddle children in one of them.Of the ten states with the highest percentage of the population in prison, educators paddle children in nine of them.Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of the population in prison, educators do not paddle children in any of them.[8]Crime in the UK (which is what my opponent is referring to with his 67% increase) has been rising since 1918. Plainly banning corporal punishment is not the reason for an upwards trend. Corporal punishment was actually banned in 1986.[9][10][11] There would then be a delay until children reached typical criminal age. Citing the crime increase since 1981 doesn't tell you anything useful.Part of the reason crime statistics have risen sharply is an increase in the reporting of crime. The British Crime Survey showed that the number of crimes was far higher in 1981 than that recorded by the police. There were three times as many thefts, twelve times as much vandalism, three times as many sexual offences, nine times as many robberies, and twice as many burglaries as the official statistics recorded.[12]"Children"s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain"Assertion not backed by evidence.My opponent claims that corporal punishment would be effective against bullying. Is my opponent claiming that bullying is a recent phenomenon, and does not actually occur in places which still have corporal punishment?My opponent claims that corporal punishment "worked for 7000 years." What does my opponent mean by "worked"? Does he want to hold up 5000 B.C as a glowing standard? Surely all my opponent can mean by "worked" is that the human race continued to exist. Anyhow, tradition is no reason to continue a practice. We can imagine a man in Mexico arguing for the reintroduction of human sacrifice on the basis that it was an honourable tradition.Violence committed by adults on defenceless children is not defensible. If an adult assaults an adult in this manner it is criminal. Guards are not permitted to paddle prisoners. Why is this seen as an acceptable way of disciplining children? If we cannot treat adults in this way, if to do so is abuse, why do some think children should be so dealt with? Also, what lesson can children possibly learn from corporal punishment, except might makes right?My opponent has failed to engage with the scientific literature that says corporal punishment achieves the opposite to its aims. If they cannot do so, everything else is moot. The debate is over. I'll add a couple of more sources for my opponent to engage with.Research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement.[13] Research has also shown a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased school truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.[14]I note that my opponent wishes to blame the hippies for everything, but that would be another debate.[1] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...[2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.stophitting.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6] http://debatewise.org... [7] http://www.principals.org...[8] http://www.nospank.net...[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[11] http://moourl.com...[12] http://www.historytoday.com...[13] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385–393.[14] Strauss, M. A. (2000). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. |
11 | bb7b9e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:12Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drugs in sports When people use drugs in sports, it is not only cheating, it is unhealthy for the user, an overdose results in death, and other problems. Good luck to my opponent. |
18 | 82dd47f2-2019-04-18T17:03:15Z-00009-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church and State should remain separate. When making laws or political decisions, the form of government in which a country is under rule plays an important role in what laws are considered "valid" or constitutional. In the United States, the form of government is ran mainly by the people in which citizens are required to vote potential candidates into office that will make political decisions that abide by constitutional law. Unfortunately, many of these candidates and elected officials use religious based propaganda in order to persuade voters into making political decisions based on their religious beliefs and use their religion to dictate legislation. However, this is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution which grants ALL citizens of the U.S. the right to "freedom of religion" or the freedom to exercise the religion of their choice and laws are required to be based on secular ideologies instead of religious based ones. However, many religious people, Conservative Fundamentalists Christians in particular, cannot seem to comprehend this, and through politics, they use their religion to take away personal freedoms from others (despite being against "big government") and use the Bible, and other forms of religious documentation to dictate legislation. The United States is not a theocracy and the Bible, Koran and Torah are NOT valid forms of documentation when determining what laws and freedoms the American people have. Church and State must remain separate. If you disagree please start your rebuttal by explaining WHY you feel that the United States should combine politics and religion. Please base your arguments on logic and if necessary, provide evidence to support your claims. Thank you. |
14 | 15445a7e-2019-04-18T18:20:39Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. In this debate, the overarching themes that I'm going to focus on are morality (with a strong focus on consequentialism) and societal welfare. With this ideal in place, I will move on toward my contentions. Contention 1: Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical. Because bullying leads to negative effects for the individual as well as society and bullying as a result of sexual orientation is so heavily common, a piece of legislation from government focusing on sexual orientation is heavily preferrable. The resulting effects from such legislation show us the practicality, and analyzingSub-point 1a: Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects. Sexual orientation is certainly one of the largest reasons for bullying in the United States: "According to GLSEN's 2009 National School Climate Survey, which polled more than 7,000 self-identified gay and straight students between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one from all fifty states and the District of Columbia from 2008 to 2009, 61 percent of all students felt unsafe at school because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation whereas only 9.8 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their gender and 7.6 percent of all students felt unsafe because of their race or ethnicity (Kosciw et al. 2010). " The methodology of this survey, by the way, is legitimate considering the largeness of the sample and how widespread it is throughout the United States, but the actual population size of the United States is still 10 times larger than the sample size. Other surveys conclude the idea that this is a problem: "LGBT youth regularly face insidious verbal and physical abuse. A recent nationally representative survey of LGBT teens by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that 84.6% of those surveyed had been verbally harassed, 40.1% had been physically harassed (pushed or shoved), and 18.8% had been physically assaulted (punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) because of his or her sexual orientation in the past year. " The effects that come from such bullying are incredibly negative: "The detrimental impact of this climate is apparent in the host of negative outcomes that attend gay youth: LGBT children and teenagers report dramatically higher levels of depression and anxiety, as well as decreased levels of self-esteem relative to their heterosexual peers. Of course, gay students are not inherently more likely to experience mental and physical harm; rather, it is "a direct result of the hatred and prejudice that surround[s] them. "Sub-point 1b: Legislation is effective, and alternatives are few. The many legislations in the United States after the suicides of 2010 prove the effectiveness of legislation against LGBT bullying: "Over the years, a small number of states have chosen to extend explicit protection to victims who are bullied based on enumerated personal characteristics. Although enumeration remains a minority position, the most recent spate of anti-bullying statutes offers a promising indication that this may be shifting. Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington—over half of the states enacting statutes in 2010—provide a list of prohibited bases for bullying behavior, including sexual orientation. These lists are uniformly nonexclusive,to highlight for teachers and school officials certain types of bullying as absolutely prohibited while still reaching bullying based on unlisted characteristics. New York's statute, for instance, encompasses but is not limited to "conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or abuse based on a person's actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. " Gay rights organizations strongly support enumeration, and research indicates that statutes that specifically identify sexual orientation as an impermissible target for bullying lead to a greater decrease in LGBT bullying than those statutes that do not. The Supreme Court, too, has stated that statutory "[e]numeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply. " Similar numbers of students report hearing homophobic remarks frequently in schools with non-enumerated anti-bullying laws (74.3% of students) as in those with no laws at all (75% of students). However, those enrolled in schools with enumerated policies experience less bullying, feel safer overall, and report that teachers are significantly more likely to intervene in instances of anti-gay bullying. These statistics underscore the tremendous potential for enumerated anti-gay bullying legislation to positively impact the lives of LGBT youth. " Alternatives are few and ineffective: "The impact of an unwelcoming school climate is aggravated for students who lack a protective buffer of social support. Studies showthat positive parental practices protect adolescents from involvement in both bullying perpetration and victimization, but sexual minority youth are less likely to receive this support at home. Approximately one third of gay and lesbian teens have suffered verbal abuse or physical violence from a family member as a consequence of coming out, and one half have experienced some form of parental rejection. Although some theorists argue that being an "anonymous and diffuse" minority is beneficial to sexual minorities, it can also make it more difficult for LGBT youth to identify similar individuals, particularly within their own age group. Facing rejection at home and school because of their sexual orientation, LGBT youth may experience a "narrow view of the options available to deal with recurrent family discord, rejection, or failure [that] contributes to a decision to commit suicide. "" Connolly, Lisa C. "Anti-Gay Bullying in Schools--Are Anti-Bullying Statutes the Solution? " New York University Law Review 87 (2012): 248-83. New York University. Web. <. http://www.law.nyu.edu...;. |
13 | 669a08bf-2019-04-18T19:03:49Z-00005-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy This is my first debate on this site. I apologize Beforehand for my improper format. I look forward to debating this matter. |
39 | 5e621ee7-2019-04-18T18:05:02Z-00007-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Raising Minimum Wage Damages the Economy Rules: I will be debating that unemployment raising minimum wage hurts the economy rather than help it. My opponent must argue that raising it helps the economy. No semantics or trolling. |
6 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits =Monetary Benefits= My opponent tries to comb through my argument and pick through it but the bottom line is, though he disagrees with the extent of my claims made, that there still is a monetary benefit for college educated people. He claims there is ONLY a difference of over $275,000. That's still a lot; a salary boost of thousands a year. In the end, though we have varying studies (and there are literally dozens of college income and average income studies and numbers out there) the bottom line, concluded by both of us, is that there is a long term monetary benefit to attending college. Even the low number given by my opponent is pretty high, and if we average the two the benefit is even higher. Through it all my opponent failed to refute the claim that there is a monetary benefit to attending college which only helps to add weight to our case going forward when combined with other points.=Social Benefits= My opponent claims that 12 years of public schooling and some start up job positions can replace the benefits given by a college experience. However, this is simply not the case. He claims "real world" experiences are better than college experiences. However, while learning how to live on your own gradually and constructively in college you're also getting an education. Instead of flinging 18 year olds into a dingy apartment right away, college eases young adults into this transition making it easier on them. Also, my opponent claims "job experience" will give them more connections than college will. This is simply an unpractical claim to make. The jobs 18 year old high school graduates will be hourly wage jobs to start almost guaranteed. They'll have to work their way up to a management position in the 4-6 years they could be in college. College students however are usually hired for higher positions automatically and will forgo the wage jobs. Another thing, colleges have Career resource centers which specialize in helping college students get jobs. The UF center for example, gives out thousands of jobs a year to college students. [1] Also, they claim that many jobs are not advertised and are only reached through school and professional connections. Up to 80% of jobs never reach the "job market" via advertising. College students will have these connections via professors, internships and the resource center on campus. Non college students are barred from all this.=Opportunities=My opponent claims 54% of students have a chance of dropping out and 20% will drop out. Almost 100% of these drop outs occur within the first year of college meaning the damage financially and to their time will only be the extent of a year. They will owe 1/4th that of traditional 4 year students. The risk is not as high as my opponent claims. On year of tuition will be about $5k not the full extent of a student loan. Also, again, the experience and status of being college educated is always there. Even if you have to start out poorly, you will always have that status which will help you advance long term. People without college educations will always hit a barrier when on the rise. People without college educations will always be barred from positions requiring an education. This is huge. The opportunities presented by a college education are forever. Not having a degree will close these doors to you and they will never be opened. =Problems with Pro-College Studies="because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago" This helps to reiterate my point that college degree benefits are more long term than my opponent wants to acknowledge. Even 20-30 years later these college graduates will get jobs and according to multiple studies will be making some amount more than their non degree holding counterparts. My opponents claims about the recession are misleading. The recession caused EVERYONE'S unemployment numbers to rise. It did not affect any one group more or less than another. Of course, if unemployment is above 8% college graduates will be affected by this. =Causation Versus Correlation=My opponent makes a rather weak claim here about causation. He claims people who go to college would be successful anyways and therefore college studies are not as straight and true as they appear. However, it doesn't change the common denominator in all these studies which is a college education. People geared towards success do tend to go to college as my opponent points out. Why? Because college gives benefits. If college benefits did not outweigh the costs then these success driven people would not attempt to attend college. They attend college because of the tangible benefits to be gained.If these college eligible people would earn more regardless of college; why attend? Because college is obviously more beneficial than not. Or else they'd continue without it and earn more anyways. College enhances these skills and benefits. =Chance of Benefits=I said before, college benefits last a lifetime. The degree will always be with you, so chance of success is exponentially greater throughout their lifetime than a non degree holding person. Also, as I mentioned before, the drop outs occur almost exclusively in the first year of college so the damage done is only a year's worth. College loans for one year, not four etc.The chance of benefits and success are exponentially greater for a college degree holder than a non college degree hold over a lifetime due to the ability to be exposed to college educated positions etc.=Conclusion=* College monetary benefit is present and confirmed by my opponent* Opportunities for jobs are exponentially greater than non degree holding people* Most high level people (CEO's, politicians etc) all have college degrees* If college didn't offer benefit's so many success geared people would rely on themselves and forgo collegeThe benefits of college outweigh the costs.[1] http://www.crc.ufl.edu... |
44 | 9e44a4aa-2019-04-18T18:37:51Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | The Problem of Evil Proves that Tri-Omni Gods Do Not Exist. Pre-debate"Con has some confused (at least unclear to me) claim based on our discussions elsewhere. If you follow his link, you'll see that I was perfectly clear even there. When he told me I should argue about god's moral perfection, I declined. When he asked how I would argue, I gave him a preview. When he read my preview, he said he would have to change his argument in order to respond."The readers can see for themselves what Pro and I said by following this link.http://www.debate.org..."And yet, here he is refusing to change his argument. He's still saying that I can't refute some other god, when I'm only interested (in this debate) in refuting the omnipotent omniscient god who tolerates evil even while being totally opposed to evil."I said that that my argument will be different depending on Pro's syllogism. That's exactly what happened. After looking at Pro's definition and syllogism, I decided to refute the resolution by challenging Pro's definition of omnibenevolnce.Accepting Definitions"Con claims that he didn't agree to my definition of "omnibenevolent." How not? I set out the definition on my opening post. He read the post, and then he agreed to the debate."Pro is again claiming that since I accepted the debate, it automatically means that I accepted all of his definitions.1. Accepting a debate does not mean that you accepted your opponents definition, unless it is agreed upon before hand.2. I did not accept Pro's definitions when I accepted the debate, I accepted the debate to challenge the resolution, and I challenged his definition of omnibenevolence as part of my argument against the resolution. I did this right off the bat in round 1, and I will continue to do so.3. I assumed that our definition of God is the Christian God since Pro knew prior to the start of the debate that I will be defending the Christian God, but after my first post where I criticized him of not actually arguing against the Christian God, Pro starts claiming that he is in fact just arguing a strawgod.Strawgodding"I not only didn't admit to it, I didn't do it. And Con should not have misrepresented me."I will forgive Pro here, since I did not really explain what I meant by strawgodding. What I meant by strawgodding is simply creating a god with arbitrary traits and arguing agaisnt it. The readers can see for themselves that Con both did this and admitted to it. I am not however accusing Pro of claiming that I believe in this strawgod that he created.I pointed out that in refusing to use the PoE as an INTERNAL critique of the Christian Worldview (which claims the opposite of the PoE), his argument was reduced to an argument against a strawgod that he himself created.1. He accomplishes nothing.2. He knew beforehand that I will be defending the Christian God."The fact is, I'm not arguing against Con's god.""I set out to show that evil could not exist if there were a god who was omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Con agrees with me. He stipulates that such a god is not compatible with evil. Or, we could put it another way: If evil exists, then that particular god does not exist."Pro again admits that his argument does not even argue against my God. I conceded that Pro's strawgod does not exist. But Pro claims that by this concession, I have conceded the full resolution of the debate. I think Pro forgot that the Christian Worldview, which he refuses to argue against, claims that a tri-omni God exists simultaneously with evil. I did not concede the full resolution of this debate since refuting the Pro's strawgod does not prove his resolution."I'm arguing against an omnipotent, omniscient, and totally-opposed-to-evil god who nonetheless coexists with evil. That god does not exist because it cannot exist. Which point, Con concedes repeatedly."Yes, indeed I agreed that that particular God can not logically exist with evil. But I argued that since omnibenevolence does NOT necessarily mean TOTALLY opposed to evil, a tri-omni God is still logically compatible with evil. This is why the debate revolves around the defintion of omnibenevolence.Back to the PoE DebatePerhaps It's my fault for trying to stay 2 arguments ahead of Pro. I will try clarify my position, and my argument against the resolution of the debate.The full resolution of the debate:"It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil.I completely disagree. Con's formulation of the argument:"An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. And no evil would slip past or baffle an omniscient god. If a tri-omni god existed, then, there would be no evil." Sounds like the typical logical PoE argument so far and the typical refutation is:God being omnibenevolent, does not necessitate that He eliminate and prevent all evil. Rather, what follows is that God will eliminate or prevent all evil, UNLESS he has a morally sufficient reason not to do so. The fact that evil exists does not at all undeniably prove that a tri-omni God can not logically exist. Because if God has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil, then God retains all of his traits while evil exists, refuting the logical PoE claim. That is the standard response that refutes the logical PoE. And this alone wins me the debate, so "VOTE CON!"But here's the issue, looking at Pro's definition of omnibenevolence, I know that he will not accept this response and claim that God is no longer omnibenevolent since according to Pro, an omnibenevolent God would not permit evil for ANY reason whatsoever.In anticipating this, I jumped on the opportunity to point out what every Christian apologist knows; that the unbeliever does not have a moral standard outside of the Christian worldview. In other words, my opponent does not have an absolute and universal standard of good that he can use to judge God's actions, and therefore will not be able to account for his definition of omni-good. "Con challenges me to provide prove that god doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. That would only be relevant if I were talking about Con's god, who is morally perfect. Let me make it clear, yes even unto the point of tedium, that I am not talking about morality. "No, I did not challenge Con to prove that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. I challenged Pro to prove that God, in permitting evil, loses His omnibenevolence. To do this Pro must undeniably substantiate his definition of omnibenevolence.Pro says that he is not talking about morality, and he's even said, "I don't claim to understand morality." Yet Pro claims to know the absolute definitions of "omnibenevolence" and "evil". You see, Pro must first pressupose the system where words like omnibenevolence and evil can be absolutely and universally defined in order to argue against it.ConclusionPro wants to win the debate by making arbitrary stipulations to God's traits and then claiming that God has not met the stipulations. Well anyone can disprove anything by doing that. Like I've said, Pro might as well define omnipotence as being able to microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat, then claim that God is therefore not omnipotent by definition.I accepted this debate and argued primarily that Pro can not account for his definition of omnibenevolence. Pro is now relying on the claim that since I accepted the debate, it means that I have to accept his defintions. I never did and if the readers decide that I did, and that therefore Pro proves his resolution by default, then that is perfectly fine with me since MY tri-omni God is uneffected, and Pro's argument only refutes a God that no one believes exists anyways. |
10 | 8c919d64-2019-04-18T16:12:17Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | All students should be required to volunteer in there community Expanding this stance, I believe that students should not be required four hours of community servers daily. Since the Pro did not adequately describe what "four hours" means, I hereby declare that it is four hours daily community service, and will be arguing against that. To begin this debate, I would like to refute my opponent's one and only, rather weak argument. Since I am Con, I will be doing a full refutation case this debate, however they will be argumentally structured refutations, sort of a two-in-one type thing. Refutation 1: My esteemed colleague has stated that community service "gives you a chance to give back to your community", :you can support your community", and that "it brings the community together". But voters, I believe that this dog won't hunt. Here are the reasons that it is injured: 1. This argument has no reasoning, evidence, or impact. In order for a strong argument, these three things are crucial. What this entire argument is comprised of is just a long assertion with no supporting details, so how can this be trusted? 2. Secondly, I do not necessarily disagree with this, but I would like to see the evidence here. One main reason why I object to any argument my opponent will bring up, is why are we mandating children to spend 4 hours of community service daily? So what, even it gives back to the community, we're wasting these children's time. They could be doing more valuable things like homework, studying, eating and drinking (to live), playing games, having fun, laughing, exercising, etc. Therefore, I believe that you should not trust my opponent's weak argument with missing reasoning, evidence, and impact, and go with a better plan"not to have children slaving over "giving back to the community" for four daily hours, while instead much better things could happen. Now judges (voters), let's take a look at the basic topic. "All students should be required to volunteer in there [I'm assuming my opponent meant 'their'] community. " So, what my opponent is saying is that everybody, and literally everybody in school, from preschool to graduate school, should have to do four hours daily of community service. But there are problems with this, some I have already pointed out. But, here are three more: 1. Preschoolers can't do community service. And even if we forced them to, what kind of wicked person would force preschoolers to perform grueling labor for four hours daily? My opponent does. This is an unrealistic notion, and my opponent's plan should not be followed through with. 2. Disabled students can't do community service. If you have a disabled person, how are they going to do four hours daily community service? Sit in their wheelchair, pick up trash on the highway, and get run over? So apparently, my opponent wishes grueling labor four hours a day on disabled people who can barely even do this. 3. A student is "a person formally engaged in learning", according to . http://dictionary.reference.com.... There are many people engaged in learning, including elderly people taking MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Elderly people and disable people are all on the same boat. How are they going to do four long hours of community service daily? And what evil person would force them to do that? My opponent. Also, many MOOC takers are from other countries, so how will we make sure that all students from around the world, even students off the grid living on farms with a computer for the whole family, get to a city and do an unrealistic four hours of community service. .. daily. There are obviously tons of flaws in my opponent's plan, and if we put this plan into place, preschoolers would be forced into labor, disabled people would be forced into labor, elderly people would be forced into labor, and money would be flushed down the toilet on making sure that literally every student in the entire world is doing unrealistically long hours of community service. So voters, as I bring this to a close, I would like to mention one final thing. |
29 | 5dd5d487-2019-04-18T12:35:34Z-00001-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | We Must Deport Illegal Immigrants From The U.S.A. For 10 Major Reasons YOUR FIRST POINT'S REBUTTAL: THE AMERICAN DREAM The phrase, "The American Dream", was coined by a white man named James Truslow Adams in his 1931 book entitled, The Epic of America. Proof Link: https://en.wikipedia.org... In it, Adams waxed poetic about The Declaration of Independence and the unalienable rights of American citizens. Proof Link: https://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to ask you, 'What does that have to do with illegal immigrants residing in the United States of America?' They are called "illegal" for a very good reason and as long as they ARE in noncompliance with U.S. Law, they will be getting deported instead of the gift of amnesty and of white picket fences. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... A sonnet about the Statue of Liberty is just that. It is not U.S. immigration law. The fact that you stress that it is a "famous" poem, makes no difference. And, if you are an illegal alien, I doubt that the Statue of Liberty is "ours" . France gave the statue to the People of the United States. The Congress turned it over to the Parks Service, which owns and operates Liberty Island. https://en.wikipedia.org... "The New Colossus" is a sonnet that American poet Emma Lazarus (1849"1887) wrote in 1883 to raise money for the construction of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. In 1903, the poem was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the pedestal's lower level." https://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, this sonnet was merely a subjective work of literary art and had no direct correlation or significance to any legislation, policy, or practice of the U.S. government. http://www.americanthinker.com... The fact that MILLIONS of Mexicans, etcetera, flood into this country without permission, says a lot about their fundamental lack of respect for this country. It also speaks volumes about their character deficits. http://hotair.com... They are in no position to be begging the United States for favors since they have given us a collective "F You" with their belligerent behavior. They will pay for it by eventually forfeiting their eligibility to "ever" get a Green Card and,this is their own fault. Not ours. https://www.uscis.gov... People can come to the United States from places like Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, etc. However, they had better come here legally and respect the laws and the people of this land. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... Comparing illegals who sneak across this country's borders to those fleeing the Communist Fidel Castro regime is like comparing apples to oranges. These are different groups of people who are viewed and treated differently by the United States government. https://www.uscis.gov... https://www.uscis.gov... You state that "Some illegal immigrants were sent through traveling with their parents". Sent through by whom? Could it be by officials from their country of origin? If that is the case, this is an outrageous effrontery against the U.S. and the American people. https://youtu.be... You state that the children are here illegally "to gain education", but, it's at the U.S. tax payer's expense. And, the illegal parents "should" be "sent away". http://amac.us... https://www.uscis.gov... The only person(s) leaving these illegal immigrant children "parent-less" in the situation that you described, is the illegal immigrant parent themselves. Needless to say, the American People are not at fault. Laws, barbed wire and fences are there for a reason. The assimilation that I am referring to has nothing to do with abandoning one's native language or religion. However, in order to become a Naturalized American Citizen, one must: "Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)." https://www.uscis.gov... Another citizenship requirement is that you assimilate to the values and ideals of the United States of America: see Oath of Allegiance http://cis.org... And, as far as illegal nimrods appearing on news cameras as they riot in U.S. streets, it's unreal.. Wrapped in Mexican flags while burning American ones, they chant, "Dump Trump" and "Not my President!!" These imbeciles should have been deported the very next day for sedition. http://www.nolo.com... Your statement about The First Amendment is incorrect. There are laws and ordinances against certain kinds of free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org... The Republicans now control the White House, The Senate, The House, and The Supreme Court. Trump will have fewer obstacles pushing through his immigration reform legislation. He already expressed an interest in creating an American Flag burning law --- violation of which would be cause for deportation. http://www.zerohedge.com... And, I am sure that it will become more and more difficult to remain in this country when the well of social goodies starts to run dry up and the government steps up its immigration enforcement. http://thecrimereport.org... https://www.msn.com... I am not going to debate with you the rights of or the atrocities against Native Americans since that has nothing to do with the basic premise of this debate. If you are interested in a discussion on the commons and land ownership, here is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org... "Now, I would love for the Pro to renounce themselves of criminality" I am not the ancestor of an "English settler". Furthermore, you can't steal something that you already own, nor can you squat on your own land. Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence suggests. http://www.independent.co.uk... Finally, insofar as the "innocent" Native Americans are concerned, there were tribes conquering tribes everywhere in the Americas, for thousands of years. Sioux conquered Kaiowas, Huron conquered Iroquoi, Shawnee conquered Pueblo's, etcetera ad nausea. Incas, Aztecs, Mayans were conquering tribes... You ignore the history of mankind. http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://www.nebraskastudies.org... YOUR 2ND POINT'S REBUTTAL : ECONOMIC GAINS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Your Facts: $12 billion in taxes into Social Security w/ stolen SS#s(which illegals use for all forms of credit applications, too) and Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITNS) $ 11 billion in state and local taxes: sales taxes and excise taxes on goods and services ===== $23 billion U.S. GDP input by illegals yearly... "Now, assuming the number of illegal immigrants is at 11 million" "Not only this, but the businesses "illegally utilizing" work pay them much less than legal citizens, even though LEGAL immigrants get paid 200% less than the minimum wage."... My Facts: Here is a tremendous article on how illegals are ripping the Amerian People off BIG TIME... http://amac.us... Here is one excerpt from the article: "In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar." Let's do some math based on your stated figure of illegal immigrants currently living in the United States in 2016 (soon to be 2017). Let's suppose that an illegal household is made up of 5 individuals... Mom, Dad, 2 kids, and baby on the way - or- 5 adults shacked up in one house. I will divide that $14,387 dollar debt into the number "5". The amount owed American tax payers AFTER each illegal pays their taxes is: $2,877.40 per illegal Okay. Now, according to you, there are: 11,000,000 illegals. So, let's now do the math! $2,877.40 owed per illegal "x" 11,000,000 illegals = $31,651,400,000 dollars per year OWED by all U.S. illegals EACH YEAR.. $31.6 BILLION This doesn't sound like illegals are doing American Citizens any favors, at all. Recap: (1) Illegals refuse to go back home and many claim unConstitutional Rights to this land, view themselves as citizens of another country, and are here to game the system https://youtu.be... (2) Illegals are eating up U.S. stock population resources like a swarm of locusts and they keep flooding over the U.S./Mexico border like there is no tomorrow (and there might not be) http://amac.us... (3) Illegals do not care about United States Government Laws because they feel that they are above the law http://hotair.com... (4) Illegals will wreck the U.S. Economy if they are given amnesty and allowed to tap into means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare http://amac.us... Seems pretty accurate to me and deportation (along with other immigration enforcement tactics) seems to be a very reasonable response to neutralize this particular threat. No one (in the United States) held a gun to their head and made them break U.S. Immigration Laws and SQUAT (Yes, SQUAT) in the U.S.A., live in a poo hole sanctuary city, and agree to a job that pays them less than minimum wage. That is the literal price that they pay to be a criminal in a foreign land; living under the radar. Also, if they had more than a third grade education, they could earn more. YOUR 3RD POINT'S REBUTTAL: PERSONAL ADVOCACY What does it MATTER whether or not the Border Patrol is corrupt? Under a Trump Administration, all of that corruption will be routed out and dealt with. It won't have any long-term negative impact on solving the illegal immigration problem. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will make sure of it. The same argument applies to other corrupt government agencies. A strong border wall/defense WILL be put in place and this will cut down on the influx of illegals considerably. Additonally, other deterrents will be used along with effective detection and apprehension tactics and technologies to stem the flow. Trump has fully stated what he plans to do with immigration reform on https://www.donaldjtrump.com.... In regard to your naturalization test sampler featured at this link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... : I am a native born American citizen, I took the test once, and I obtained the highest score offered: "10". The test was easy for me and I am of average intelligence so, I am taking your argument and your article "proofs" with a grain of salt. Also, your argument is obsolete, since this issue has already been addressed: http://blogs.edweek.org... Furthermore, the last thing that we need is millions of functionally illiterate people in the interior of this country given amnesty when they can't even sign their name in their native language. "According to a 2007 report from the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 400,000 legal immigrants and 350,000 illegal immigrants were illiterate in their native languages, much less English. This contributed to the first decline in literacy in California"s history. In 2003, its adult illiteracy rate of 23 percent"up 50 percent in 10 years"put it last among all states." https://www.newswithviews.com... That is the whole purpose of the testing protocol for U.S. Naturalization and Citizenship. The U.S.A. wants the best and the brightest to immigrate to this country to make it better and to make it competitive with the rest of the countries of the world. https://books.google.com... It doesn't want a bunch of dullards added to the population in mass to turn us into a Third World country. We have enough problems getting our own people to rise up, contribute, compete and do better. https://www.washingtonpost.com... |
34 | 5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are harmful. こんにちは、 と議論へようこそ。 Hello, and welcome to the debate, Social Networking sites are harmful. Yes they are harmful. I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. "There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online." Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. |
31 | ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00006-000 | Is obesity a disease? | More People Should Fat-Shame Women Outline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer "Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder"Diabetes "Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers." [2]Heart disease "Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart." [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence "CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity." [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber "It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake" [5] Sleep "Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals." [6]. Exercise " Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%)." [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com... |
2 | 3a205777-2019-04-18T12:54:13Z-00001-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Why the Future is Safe I'm here because I need points for this topic, please help me come up with points, I only have Evolution and Space Exploration. If you can help on expanding on these points or making them, then please help me. I know most people won't help but if you can, it would be nice. Thank you! |
18 | f1173c1a-2019-04-18T17:52:03Z-00007-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws First I would like to say that I am neither against or for gay or lesbian rights. All I think is churches should be excluded from any laws made. |
Subsets and Splits